Houston - LW v V&E v KE Forum

[Anonymous User]

Law student here and wanted to know how these three firms faired in the Houston market. I know that they are considered to be in the "highest" tier for transactional work in Houston, but is there anything else that really separates the three? Contemplating offers from the firms and would love some insight into how each firm is in terms of future prospects (i.e., how stable the firms are when markets go to shit) and culture/experience of associates at these firm. Also I should avoid any of these firms at all costs?

I guess I'm generally asking about the state of the Houston market and how these firms play into it.

Thanks!

[Barry grandpapy]

They're peers.

So, you should heavily consider soft factors.

Do they have free lunch and if so - how often/nice? Do they allow mega backdoor Roth IRA conversions? Can you stay in a corporate pool past a year?

These are the money questions. Oh and don't listen to generic BS about culture. You won't be able to control that as it's incredibly group dependent, wherever you go.

[Anonymous User]

On the PE Side, KE/LW.

[Anonymous User]

On the PE Side, KE/LW.

LW is not a PE player. Certainly they have work, but a long way behind KE.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - Are there any factors that may affect the stability of the firms? I know it’s impossible to predict, but I’d rather not get axed if things go downhill. Also, are there any benefits to picking the “legacy TX” firm over the other two national firms?

[Anonymous User]

OP here - Are there any factors that may affect the stability of the firms? I know it’s impossible to predict, but I’d rather not get axed if things go downhill. Also, are there any benefits to picking the “legacy TX” firm over the other two national firms?

In a major recession such that KE and LW are making material layoffs, V&E would be "more screwed." But they are all big firms making a lot of money. LW and KE have more stable platforms and are doing "better" than V&E, in Houston and everywhere else.

The benefit to V&E is that all the "normal people" in Houston have heard of it (and Baker Botts and "Fulbright and Jaworski"), whereas most of them have never heard of either of LW or KE. It may or may not help with exits in the Houston market.

V&E also has "everything" in their office, whereas LW is (almost entirely) transactional, and KE has a little more variety, but not much.

You shouldn't pick based on likelihood of not being fired (at least with these three firms).

[Anonymous User]

They're peers.

So, you should heavily consider soft factors.

Do they have free lunch and if so - how often/nice? Do they allow mega backdoor Roth IRA conversions? Can you stay in a corporate pool past a year?

These are the money questions. Oh and don't listen to generic BS about culture. You won't be able to control that as it's incredibly group dependent, wherever you go.

Whats a corporate pool?

[Anonymous User]

OP here - Are there any factors that may affect the stability of the firms? I know it’s impossible to predict, but I’d rather not get axed if things go downhill. Also, are there any benefits to picking the “legacy TX” firm over the other two national firms?

In a major recession such that KE and LW are making material layoffs, V&E would be "more screwed." But they are all big firms making a lot of money. LW and KE have more stable platforms and are doing "better" than V&E, in Houston and everywhere else.

The benefit to V&E is that all the "normal people" in Houston have heard of it (and Baker Botts and "Fulbright and Jaworski"), whereas most of them have never heard of either of LW or KE. It may or may not help with exits in the Houston market.

V&E also has "everything" in their office, whereas LW is (almost entirely) transactional, and KE has a little more variety, but not much.

You shouldn't pick based on likelihood of not being fired (at least with these three firms).

I think it’s obvious that OP is most likely to be fired at K&E. They already hit Houston hard — it’s a large satellite office, which is historically where biglaw has made the harshest cuts.

for V&E, being the HQ is a positive thing. But Texas firms tend not to have 100% offer rates for summers.

My take here is that it’d be insane to take K&E Houston here. Personally I’d probably take Latham but I think V&E is also a very defensible choice.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - Are there any factors that may affect the stability of the firms? I know it’s impossible to predict, but I’d rather not get axed if things go downhill. Also, are there any benefits to picking the “legacy TX” firm over the other two national firms?

In a major recession such that KE and LW are making material layoffs, V&E would be "more screwed." But they are all big firms making a lot of money. LW and KE have more stable platforms and are doing "better" than V&E, in Houston and everywhere else.

The benefit to V&E is that all the "normal people" in Houston have heard of it (and Baker Botts and "Fulbright and Jaworski"), whereas most of them have never heard of either of LW or KE. It may or may not help with exits in the Houston market.

V&E also has "everything" in their office, whereas LW is (almost entirely) transactional, and KE has a little more variety, but not much.

You shouldn't pick based on likelihood of not being fired (at least with these three firms).

I think it’s obvious that OP is most likely to be fired at K&E. They already hit Houston hard — it’s a large satellite office, which is historically where biglaw has made the harshest cuts.

for V&E, being the HQ is a positive thing. But Texas firms tend not to have 100% offer rates for summers.

My take here is that it’d be insane to take K&E Houston here. Personally I’d probably take Latham but I think V&E is also a very defensible choice.

This response is so out of touch with reality, I don't understand why people post responses when they have no idea what they are talking about. I am at one of these shops, have friends at the other two (think my closest friends for many years) and we very often compare notes. All 3 of these places are doing well in Houston. V&E is struggling a bit to retain talent because K&E/LW (even Simpson) are just able to pay their partners more (look at the ranks between V&Es junior partners and senior partners, there is almost no one left in M&A in Houston and they are now at those 3 shops). You can take that as risk or opportunity, depending on how you look at things. Unlikely to be "fired" at any of these places as long as you work hard. The firings at K&E were exclusively people who had completely given up on the job (read really low hours AND non-responsive relative to biglaw expectations or quit paying attention to detail). If anyone tells you different, they are lying/don't know (and my info is not coming from share partners at KE that are just trying to save face, its from senior associates and NSPs). V&E also did some "firing", if you want to call it that, they are just smaller and its easier to cover telling a couple associates to find a new job. All of these shops give a long "severance" period to find something new. Firms cut the worst associates every year, and good associates at that firm are grateful because working in biglaw with a midlevel who doesn't give a shit is how a hard job becomes the worst job.

V&E having a Houston HQ is a huge positive. The decision makers are all there. If you can become Keith's guy, you will make it. V&E also does the best job helping its "fired" and "passed up" associates find in-house positions. K&E and LW have not gotten to their level just yet. That said, K&E Houston is very similar in power terms in that Calder has a huge say in K&E firmwide (and in Texas he calls the shots with very little external pressure since TX is performing so well frimwide), so I would say going to K&E Houston is a big positive over the Dallas office. Both those Houston offices have free rein to make equity partners for the firm. I would say Latham has a bit less power relative to the firm, there just isn't a partner in the Houston office who has as much power on the "firm committee" as a Fullenwider or Calder. Latham has done a great job making equity partners in that office though, so I wouldn't worry about it.

K&E is doing the highest level PE work (and its not close) and probably M&A in general, but I think you should also expect to bill the most hours there (but make no mistake, it won't be materially more). You should expect to bill between 2300-2500 at each of these shops if you are good (and want "max" bonus). So if you want the most "firm" exit options I would say if you start at Kirkland and do PE work, you can easily go to any firm in Texas. V&E is a bit more "full service" in that they will let associates do both M&A and capital markets for longer, which is a good skill set, but also means as they get senior they are behind their brethren who only did M&A or capital markets work all those years. LW has the strongest capital markets practice and its a big focus of their shop, but they have brought on more M&A young talent in recent years, so they are picking up in that space as well. Neither V&E nor LW has a huge PE practice in Houston and I only mention that because PE is all the rage right now, so some people think they want to do it before they know what it is.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - Are there any factors that may affect the stability of the firms? I know it’s impossible to predict, but I’d rather not get axed if things go downhill. Also, are there any benefits to picking the “legacy TX” firm over the other two national firms?

In a major recession such that KE and LW are making material layoffs, V&E would be "more screwed." But they are all big firms making a lot of money. LW and KE have more stable platforms and are doing "better" than V&E, in Houston and everywhere else.

The benefit to V&E is that all the "normal people" in Houston have heard of it (and Baker Botts and "Fulbright and Jaworski"), whereas most of them have never heard of either of LW or KE. It may or may not help with exits in the Houston market.

V&E also has "everything" in their office, whereas LW is (almost entirely) transactional, and KE has a little more variety, but not much.

You shouldn't pick based on likelihood of not being fired (at least with these three firms).

I think it’s obvious that OP is most likely to be fired at K&E. They already hit Houston hard — it’s a large satellite office, which is historically where biglaw has made the harshest cuts.

for V&E, being the HQ is a positive thing. But Texas firms tend not to have 100% offer rates for summers.

My take here is that it’d be insane to take K&E Houston here. Personally I’d probably take Latham but I think V&E is also a very defensible choice.

Would only add that I wouldn't decide these firms based on perceived offer rate. An offer is just as easily attainable at V&E as any other firm these days (i.e., it's essentially guaranteed beyond some egregious behavior).

[Anonymous User]

OP here - Are there any factors that may affect the stability of the firms? I know it’s impossible to predict, but I’d rather not get axed if things go downhill. Also, are there any benefits to picking the “legacy TX” firm over the other two national firms?

In a major recession such that KE and LW are making material layoffs, V&E would be "more screwed." But they are all big firms making a lot of money. LW and KE have more stable platforms and are doing "better" than V&E, in Houston and everywhere else.

The benefit to V&E is that all the "normal people" in Houston have heard of it (and Baker Botts and "Fulbright and Jaworski"), whereas most of them have never heard of either of LW or KE. It may or may not help with exits in the Houston market.

V&E also has "everything" in their office, whereas LW is (almost entirely) transactional, and KE has a little more variety, but not much.

You shouldn't pick based on likelihood of not being fired (at least with these three firms).

I think it’s obvious that OP is most likely to be fired at K&E. They already hit Houston hard — it’s a large satellite office, which is historically where biglaw has made the harshest cuts.

for V&E, being the HQ is a positive thing. But Texas firms tend not to have 100% offer rates for summers.

My take here is that it’d be insane to take K&E Houston here. Personally I’d probably take Latham but I think V&E is also a very defensible choice.

This response is so out of touch with reality, I don't understand why people post responses when they have no idea what they are talking about. I am at one of these shops, have friends at the other two (think my closest friends for many years) and we very often compare notes. All 3 of these places are doing well in Houston. V&E is struggling a bit to retain talent because K&E/LW (even Simpson) are just able to pay their partners more (look at the ranks between V&Es junior partners and senior partners, there is almost no one left in M&A in Houston and they are now at those 3 shops). You can take that as risk or opportunity, depending on how you look at things. Unlikely to be "fired" at any of these places as long as you work hard. The firings at K&E were exclusively people who had completely given up on the job (read really low hours AND non-responsive relative to biglaw expectations or quit paying attention to detail). If anyone tells you different, they are lying/don't know (and my info is not coming from share partners at KE that are just trying to save face, its from senior associates and NSPs). V&E also did some "firing", if you want to call it that, they are just smaller and its easier to cover telling a couple associates to find a new job. All of these shops give a long "severance" period to find something new. Firms cut the worst associates every year, and good associates at that firm are grateful because working in biglaw with a midlevel who doesn't give a shit is how a hard job becomes the worst job.

V&E having a Houston HQ is a huge positive. The decision makers are all there. If you can become Keith's guy, you will make it. V&E also does the best job helping its "fired" and "passed up" associates find in-house positions. K&E and LW have not gotten to their level just yet. That said, K&E Houston is very similar in power terms in that Calder has a huge say in K&E firmwide (and in Texas he calls the shots with very little external pressure since TX is performing so well frimwide), so I would say going to K&E Houston is a big positive over the Dallas office. Both those Houston offices have free rein to make equity partners for the firm. I would say Latham has a bit less power relative to the firm, there just isn't a partner in the Houston office who has as much power on the "firm committee" as a Fullenwider or Calder. Latham has done a great job making equity partners in that office though, so I wouldn't worry about it.

K&E is doing the highest level PE work (and its not close) and probably M&A in general, but I think you should also expect to bill the most hours there (but make no mistake, it won't be materially more). You should expect to bill between 2300-2500 at each of these shops if you are good (and want "max" bonus). So if you want the most "firm" exit options I would say if you start at Kirkland and do PE work, you can easily go to any firm in Texas. V&E is a bit more "full service" in that they will let associates do both M&A and capital markets for longer, which is a good skill set, but also means as they get senior they are behind their brethren who only did M&A or capital markets work all those years. LW has the strongest capital markets practice and its a big focus of their shop, but they have brought on more M&A young talent in recent years, so they are picking up in that space as well. Neither V&E nor LW has a huge PE practice in Houston and I only mention that because PE is all the rage right now, so some people think they want to do it before they know what it is.

Having read your whole post, I am not swayed. I don’t believe for a second that K&E only gave the boot to horrible associates. Biglaw firms don’t operate that competently. But even if you are right, and that many horrible associates actually did exist at K&E Houston, that’s still absurd and embarrassing (but just for different reasons).

One doesn’t need to be an expert on the Houston market to know that K&E is the wrong choice for an OP who has two far superior options. K&E treats associates like trash and shouldn’t even be a part of this conversation.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - Are there any factors that may affect the stability of the firms? I know it’s impossible to predict, but I’d rather not get axed if things go downhill. Also, are there any benefits to picking the “legacy TX” firm over the other two national firms?

In a major recession such that KE and LW are making material layoffs, V&E would be "more screwed." But they are all big firms making a lot of money. LW and KE have more stable platforms and are doing "better" than V&E, in Houston and everywhere else.

The benefit to V&E is that all the "normal people" in Houston have heard of it (and Baker Botts and "Fulbright and Jaworski"), whereas most of them have never heard of either of LW or KE. It may or may not help with exits in the Houston market.

V&E also has "everything" in their office, whereas LW is (almost entirely) transactional, and KE has a little more variety, but not much.

You shouldn't pick based on likelihood of not being fired (at least with these three firms).

I think it’s obvious that OP is most likely to be fired at K&E. They already hit Houston hard — it’s a large satellite office, which is historically where biglaw has made the harshest cuts.

for V&E, being the HQ is a positive thing. But Texas firms tend not to have 100% offer rates for summers.

My take here is that it’d be insane to take K&E Houston here. Personally I’d probably take Latham but I think V&E is also a very defensible choice.

This response is so out of touch with reality, I don't understand why people post responses when they have no idea what they are talking about. I am at one of these shops, have friends at the other two (think my closest friends for many years) and we very often compare notes. All 3 of these places are doing well in Houston. V&E is struggling a bit to retain talent because K&E/LW (even Simpson) are just able to pay their partners more (look at the ranks between V&Es junior partners and senior partners, there is almost no one left in M&A in Houston and they are now at those 3 shops). You can take that as risk or opportunity, depending on how you look at things. Unlikely to be "fired" at any of these places as long as you work hard. The firings at K&E were exclusively people who had completely given up on the job (read really low hours AND non-responsive relative to biglaw expectations or quit paying attention to detail). If anyone tells you different, they are lying/don't know (and my info is not coming from share partners at KE that are just trying to save face, its from senior associates and NSPs). V&E also did some "firing", if you want to call it that, they are just smaller and its easier to cover telling a couple associates to find a new job. All of these shops give a long "severance" period to find something new. Firms cut the worst associates every year, and good associates at that firm are grateful because working in biglaw with a midlevel who doesn't give a shit is how a hard job becomes the worst job.

V&E having a Houston HQ is a huge positive. The decision makers are all there. If you can become Keith's guy, you will make it. V&E also does the best job helping its "fired" and "passed up" associates find in-house positions. K&E and LW have not gotten to their level just yet. That said, K&E Houston is very similar in power terms in that Calder has a huge say in K&E firmwide (and in Texas he calls the shots with very little external pressure since TX is performing so well frimwide), so I would say going to K&E Houston is a big positive over the Dallas office. Both those Houston offices have free rein to make equity partners for the firm. I would say Latham has a bit less power relative to the firm, there just isn't a partner in the Houston office who has as much power on the "firm committee" as a Fullenwider or Calder. Latham has done a great job making equity partners in that office though, so I wouldn't worry about it.

K&E is doing the highest level PE work (and its not close) and probably M&A in general, but I think you should also expect to bill the most hours there (but make no mistake, it won't be materially more). You should expect to bill between 2300-2500 at each of these shops if you are good (and want "max" bonus). So if you want the most "firm" exit options I would say if you start at Kirkland and do PE work, you can easily go to any firm in Texas. V&E is a bit more "full service" in that they will let associates do both M&A and capital markets for longer, which is a good skill set, but also means as they get senior they are behind their brethren who only did M&A or capital markets work all those years. LW has the strongest capital markets practice and its a big focus of their shop, but they have brought on more M&A young talent in recent years, so they are picking up in that space as well. Neither V&E nor LW has a huge PE practice in Houston and I only mention that because PE is all the rage right now, so some people think they want to do it before they know what it is.

Having read your whole post, I am not swayed. I don’t believe for a second that K&E only gave the boot to horrible associates. Biglaw firms don’t operate that competently. But even if you are right, and that many horrible associates actually did exist at K&E Houston, that’s still absurd and embarrassing (but just for different reasons).

One doesn’t need to be an expert on the Houston market to know that K&E is the wrong choice for an OP who has two far superior options. K&E treats associates like trash and shouldn’t even be a part of this conversation.

It was less than 10 associates across all Texas offices (I think as low as 5? not sure) - not even just in Houston. It is very easy to see a 12 month hours count of 1400 when things have been busy and know someone has checked out.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - Are there any factors that may affect the stability of the firms? I know it’s impossible to predict, but I’d rather not get axed if things go downhill. Also, are there any benefits to picking the “legacy TX” firm over the other two national firms?

In a major recession such that KE and LW are making material layoffs, V&E would be "more screwed." But they are all big firms making a lot of money. LW and KE have more stable platforms and are doing "better" than V&E, in Houston and everywhere else.

The benefit to V&E is that all the "normal people" in Houston have heard of it (and Baker Botts and "Fulbright and Jaworski"), whereas most of them have never heard of either of LW or KE. It may or may not help with exits in the Houston market.

V&E also has "everything" in their office, whereas LW is (almost entirely) transactional, and KE has a little more variety, but not much.

You shouldn't pick based on likelihood of not being fired (at least with these three firms).

I think it’s obvious that OP is most likely to be fired at K&E. They already hit Houston hard — it’s a large satellite office, which is historically where biglaw has made the harshest cuts.

for V&E, being the HQ is a positive thing. But Texas firms tend not to have 100% offer rates for summers.

My take here is that it’d be insane to take K&E Houston here. Personally I’d probably take Latham but I think V&E is also a very defensible choice.

This response is so out of touch with reality, I don't understand why people post responses when they have no idea what they are talking about. I am at one of these shops, have friends at the other two (think my closest friends for many years) and we very often compare notes. All 3 of these places are doing well in Houston. V&E is struggling a bit to retain talent because K&E/LW (even Simpson) are just able to pay their partners more (look at the ranks between V&Es junior partners and senior partners, there is almost no one left in M&A in Houston and they are now at those 3 shops). You can take that as risk or opportunity, depending on how you look at things. Unlikely to be "fired" at any of these places as long as you work hard. The firings at K&E were exclusively people who had completely given up on the job (read really low hours AND non-responsive relative to biglaw expectations or quit paying attention to detail). If anyone tells you different, they are lying/don't know (and my info is not coming from share partners at KE that are just trying to save face, its from senior associates and NSPs). V&E also did some "firing", if you want to call it that, they are just smaller and its easier to cover telling a couple associates to find a new job. All of these shops give a long "severance" period to find something new. Firms cut the worst associates every year, and good associates at that firm are grateful because working in biglaw with a midlevel who doesn't give a shit is how a hard job becomes the worst job.

V&E having a Houston HQ is a huge positive. The decision makers are all there. If you can become Keith's guy, you will make it. V&E also does the best job helping its "fired" and "passed up" associates find in-house positions. K&E and LW have not gotten to their level just yet. That said, K&E Houston is very similar in power terms in that Calder has a huge say in K&E firmwide (and in Texas he calls the shots with very little external pressure since TX is performing so well frimwide), so I would say going to K&E Houston is a big positive over the Dallas office. Both those Houston offices have free rein to make equity partners for the firm. I would say Latham has a bit less power relative to the firm, there just isn't a partner in the Houston office who has as much power on the "firm committee" as a Fullenwider or Calder. Latham has done a great job making equity partners in that office though, so I wouldn't worry about it.

K&E is doing the highest level PE work (and its not close) and probably M&A in general, but I think you should also expect to bill the most hours there (but make no mistake, it won't be materially more). You should expect to bill between 2300-2500 at each of these shops if you are good (and want "max" bonus). So if you want the most "firm" exit options I would say if you start at Kirkland and do PE work, you can easily go to any firm in Texas. V&E is a bit more "full service" in that they will let associates do both M&A and capital markets for longer, which is a good skill set, but also means as they get senior they are behind their brethren who only did M&A or capital markets work all those years. LW has the strongest capital markets practice and its a big focus of their shop, but they have brought on more M&A young talent in recent years, so they are picking up in that space as well. Neither V&E nor LW has a huge PE practice in Houston and I only mention that because PE is all the rage right now, so some people think they want to do it before they know what it is.

Having read your whole post, I am not swayed. I don’t believe for a second that K&E only gave the boot to horrible associates. Biglaw firms don’t operate that competently. But even if you are right, and that many horrible associates actually did exist at K&E Houston, that’s still absurd and embarrassing (but just for different reasons).

One doesn’t need to be an expert on the Houston market to know that K&E is the wrong choice for an OP who has two far superior options. K&E treats associates like trash and shouldn’t even be a part of this conversation.

It was less than 10 associates across all Texas offices (I think as low as 5? not sure) - not even just in Houston. It is very easy to see a 12 month hours count of 1400 when things have been busy and know someone has checked out.

I personally know two stealthed K&E associates who claim to have been pacing over 2000 hours. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It’s gotta be Latham or V&E here.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - Are there any factors that may affect the stability of the firms? I know it’s impossible to predict, but I’d rather not get axed if things go downhill. Also, are there any benefits to picking the “legacy TX” firm over the other two national firms?

In a major recession such that KE and LW are making material layoffs, V&E would be "more screwed." But they are all big firms making a lot of money. LW and KE have more stable platforms and are doing "better" than V&E, in Houston and everywhere else.

The benefit to V&E is that all the "normal people" in Houston have heard of it (and Baker Botts and "Fulbright and Jaworski"), whereas most of them have never heard of either of LW or KE. It may or may not help with exits in the Houston market.

V&E also has "everything" in their office, whereas LW is (almost entirely) transactional, and KE has a little more variety, but not much.

You shouldn't pick based on likelihood of not being fired (at least with these three firms).

I think it’s obvious that OP is most likely to be fired at K&E. They already hit Houston hard — it’s a large satellite office, which is historically where biglaw has made the harshest cuts.

for V&E, being the HQ is a positive thing. But Texas firms tend not to have 100% offer rates for summers.

My take here is that it’d be insane to take K&E Houston here. Personally I’d probably take Latham but I think V&E is also a very defensible choice.

This response is so out of touch with reality, I don't understand why people post responses when they have no idea what they are talking about. I am at one of these shops, have friends at the other two (think my closest friends for many years) and we very often compare notes. All 3 of these places are doing well in Houston. V&E is struggling a bit to retain talent because K&E/LW (even Simpson) are just able to pay their partners more (look at the ranks between V&Es junior partners and senior partners, there is almost no one left in M&A in Houston and they are now at those 3 shops). You can take that as risk or opportunity, depending on how you look at things. Unlikely to be "fired" at any of these places as long as you work hard. The firings at K&E were exclusively people who had completely given up on the job (read really low hours AND non-responsive relative to biglaw expectations or quit paying attention to detail). If anyone tells you different, they are lying/don't know (and my info is not coming from share partners at KE that are just trying to save face, its from senior associates and NSPs). V&E also did some "firing", if you want to call it that, they are just smaller and its easier to cover telling a couple associates to find a new job. All of these shops give a long "severance" period to find something new. Firms cut the worst associates every year, and good associates at that firm are grateful because working in biglaw with a midlevel who doesn't give a shit is how a hard job becomes the worst job.

V&E having a Houston HQ is a huge positive. The decision makers are all there. If you can become Keith's guy, you will make it. V&E also does the best job helping its "fired" and "passed up" associates find in-house positions. K&E and LW have not gotten to their level just yet. That said, K&E Houston is very similar in power terms in that Calder has a huge say in K&E firmwide (and in Texas he calls the shots with very little external pressure since TX is performing so well frimwide), so I would say going to K&E Houston is a big positive over the Dallas office. Both those Houston offices have free rein to make equity partners for the firm. I would say Latham has a bit less power relative to the firm, there just isn't a partner in the Houston office who has as much power on the "firm committee" as a Fullenwider or Calder. Latham has done a great job making equity partners in that office though, so I wouldn't worry about it.

K&E is doing the highest level PE work (and its not close) and probably M&A in general, but I think you should also expect to bill the most hours there (but make no mistake, it won't be materially more). You should expect to bill between 2300-2500 at each of these shops if you are good (and want "max" bonus). So if you want the most "firm" exit options I would say if you start at Kirkland and do PE work, you can easily go to any firm in Texas. V&E is a bit more "full service" in that they will let associates do both M&A and capital markets for longer, which is a good skill set, but also means as they get senior they are behind their brethren who only did M&A or capital markets work all those years. LW has the strongest capital markets practice and its a big focus of their shop, but they have brought on more M&A young talent in recent years, so they are picking up in that space as well. Neither V&E nor LW has a huge PE practice in Houston and I only mention that because PE is all the rage right now, so some people think they want to do it before they know what it is.

Having read your whole post, I am not swayed. I don’t believe for a second that K&E only gave the boot to horrible associates. Biglaw firms don’t operate that competently. But even if you are right, and that many horrible associates actually did exist at K&E Houston, that’s still absurd and embarrassing (but just for different reasons).

One doesn’t need to be an expert on the Houston market to know that K&E is the wrong choice for an OP who has two far superior options. K&E treats associates like trash and shouldn’t even be a part of this conversation.

It was less than 10 associates across all Texas offices (I think as low as 5? not sure) - not even just in Houston. It is very easy to see a 12 month hours count of 1400 when things have been busy and know someone has checked out.

I personally know two stealthed K&E associates who claim to have been pacing over 2000 hours. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It’s gotta be Latham or V&E here.

oh wait, so they didn't say "yeah, I was really bad at the job and honestly didn't try very hard. Oh also, my hours were really low because I was trying to hide"? I am shocked, usually when someone who is bad gets fired because they were bad, they love to talk about how bad they are!

[Anonymous User]

In a major recession such that KE and LW are making material layoffs, V&E would be "more screwed." But they are all big firms making a lot of money. LW and KE have more stable platforms and are doing "better" than V&E, in Houston and everywhere else.

The benefit to V&E is that all the "normal people" in Houston have heard of it (and Baker Botts and "Fulbright and Jaworski"), whereas most of them have never heard of either of LW or KE. It may or may not help with exits in the Houston market.

V&E also has "everything" in their office, whereas LW is (almost entirely) transactional, and KE has a little more variety, but not much.

You shouldn't pick based on likelihood of not being fired (at least with these three firms).

I think it’s obvious that OP is most likely to be fired at K&E. They already hit Houston hard — it’s a large satellite office, which is historically where biglaw has made the harshest cuts.

for V&E, being the HQ is a positive thing. But Texas firms tend not to have 100% offer rates for summers.

My take here is that it’d be insane to take K&E Houston here. Personally I’d probably take Latham but I think V&E is also a very defensible choice.

This response is so out of touch with reality, I don't understand why people post responses when they have no idea what they are talking about. I am at one of these shops, have friends at the other two (think my closest friends for many years) and we very often compare notes. All 3 of these places are doing well in Houston. V&E is struggling a bit to retain talent because K&E/LW (even Simpson) are just able to pay their partners more (look at the ranks between V&Es junior partners and senior partners, there is almost no one left in M&A in Houston and they are now at those 3 shops). You can take that as risk or opportunity, depending on how you look at things. Unlikely to be "fired" at any of these places as long as you work hard. The firings at K&E were exclusively people who had completely given up on the job (read really low hours AND non-responsive relative to biglaw expectations or quit paying attention to detail). If anyone tells you different, they are lying/don't know (and my info is not coming from share partners at KE that are just trying to save face, its from senior associates and NSPs). V&E also did some "firing", if you want to call it that, they are just smaller and its easier to cover telling a couple associates to find a new job. All of these shops give a long "severance" period to find something new. Firms cut the worst associates every year, and good associates at that firm are grateful because working in biglaw with a midlevel who doesn't give a shit is how a hard job becomes the worst job.

V&E having a Houston HQ is a huge positive. The decision makers are all there. If you can become Keith's guy, you will make it. V&E also does the best job helping its "fired" and "passed up" associates find in-house positions. K&E and LW have not gotten to their level just yet. That said, K&E Houston is very similar in power terms in that Calder has a huge say in K&E firmwide (and in Texas he calls the shots with very little external pressure since TX is performing so well frimwide), so I would say going to K&E Houston is a big positive over the Dallas office. Both those Houston offices have free rein to make equity partners for the firm. I would say Latham has a bit less power relative to the firm, there just isn't a partner in the Houston office who has as much power on the "firm committee" as a Fullenwider or Calder. Latham has done a great job making equity partners in that office though, so I wouldn't worry about it.

K&E is doing the highest level PE work (and its not close) and probably M&A in general, but I think you should also expect to bill the most hours there (but make no mistake, it won't be materially more). You should expect to bill between 2300-2500 at each of these shops if you are good (and want "max" bonus). So if you want the most "firm" exit options I would say if you start at Kirkland and do PE work, you can easily go to any firm in Texas. V&E is a bit more "full service" in that they will let associates do both M&A and capital markets for longer, which is a good skill set, but also means as they get senior they are behind their brethren who only did M&A or capital markets work all those years. LW has the strongest capital markets practice and its a big focus of their shop, but they have brought on more M&A young talent in recent years, so they are picking up in that space as well. Neither V&E nor LW has a huge PE practice in Houston and I only mention that because PE is all the rage right now, so some people think they want to do it before they know what it is.

Having read your whole post, I am not swayed. I don’t believe for a second that K&E only gave the boot to horrible associates. Biglaw firms don’t operate that competently. But even if you are right, and that many horrible associates actually did exist at K&E Houston, that’s still absurd and embarrassing (but just for different reasons).

One doesn’t need to be an expert on the Houston market to know that K&E is the wrong choice for an OP who has two far superior options. K&E treats associates like trash and shouldn’t even be a part of this conversation.

It was less than 10 associates across all Texas offices (I think as low as 5? not sure) - not even just in Houston. It is very easy to see a 12 month hours count of 1400 when things have been busy and know someone has checked out.

I personally know two stealthed K&E associates who claim to have been pacing over 2000 hours. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It’s gotta be Latham or V&E here.

oh wait, so they didn't say "yeah, I was really bad at the job and honestly didn't try very hard. Oh also, my hours were really low because I was trying to hide"? I am shocked, usually when someone who is bad gets fired because they were bad, they love to talk about how bad they are!

Yeah the bulk of the layoffs were in Dallas, not Houston (and even then weren’t that many). Houston is K&E’s most profitable office, and K&E is the most profitable firm in the world. They’re not cutting associates just for the fun of it. Right now they’re building out a full-scale lunch cafe with chefs to cook you free food (an expansion of the existing breakfast/lunch hot daily catering and to-go items) and an internal Starbucks with barista to make whatever drinks you want for free. They’re also making an in-house spa salon for hair, manicures, massages, etc., among other perks.

Clearly an office that’s financially hurting *eye roll*.

Re: proximity to firmwide power, Houston has a lot of rainmakers and partners with important firmwide positions, and Calder is now effectively #2 globally behind Ballis so it’s a far cry from just a “satellite” these days. Plus it’s about the same size as V&E despite not being HQ.

[Anonymous User]

In a major recession such that KE and LW are making material layoffs, V&E would be "more screwed." But they are all big firms making a lot of money. LW and KE have more stable platforms and are doing "better" than V&E, in Houston and everywhere else.

The benefit to V&E is that all the "normal people" in Houston have heard of it (and Baker Botts and "Fulbright and Jaworski"), whereas most of them have never heard of either of LW or KE. It may or may not help with exits in the Houston market.

V&E also has "everything" in their office, whereas LW is (almost entirely) transactional, and KE has a little more variety, but not much.

You shouldn't pick based on likelihood of not being fired (at least with these three firms).

I think it’s obvious that OP is most likely to be fired at K&E. They already hit Houston hard — it’s a large satellite office, which is historically where biglaw has made the harshest cuts.

for V&E, being the HQ is a positive thing. But Texas firms tend not to have 100% offer rates for summers.

My take here is that it’d be insane to take K&E Houston here. Personally I’d probably take Latham but I think V&E is also a very defensible choice.

This response is so out of touch with reality, I don't understand why people post responses when they have no idea what they are talking about. I am at one of these shops, have friends at the other two (think my closest friends for many years) and we very often compare notes. All 3 of these places are doing well in Houston. V&E is struggling a bit to retain talent because K&E/LW (even Simpson) are just able to pay their partners more (look at the ranks between V&Es junior partners and senior partners, there is almost no one left in M&A in Houston and they are now at those 3 shops). You can take that as risk or opportunity, depending on how you look at things. Unlikely to be "fired" at any of these places as long as you work hard. The firings at K&E were exclusively people who had completely given up on the job (read really low hours AND non-responsive relative to biglaw expectations or quit paying attention to detail). If anyone tells you different, they are lying/don't know (and my info is not coming from share partners at KE that are just trying to save face, its from senior associates and NSPs). V&E also did some "firing", if you want to call it that, they are just smaller and its easier to cover telling a couple associates to find a new job. All of these shops give a long "severance" period to find something new. Firms cut the worst associates every year, and good associates at that firm are grateful because working in biglaw with a midlevel who doesn't give a shit is how a hard job becomes the worst job.

V&E having a Houston HQ is a huge positive. The decision makers are all there. If you can become Keith's guy, you will make it. V&E also does the best job helping its "fired" and "passed up" associates find in-house positions. K&E and LW have not gotten to their level just yet. That said, K&E Houston is very similar in power terms in that Calder has a huge say in K&E firmwide (and in Texas he calls the shots with very little external pressure since TX is performing so well frimwide), so I would say going to K&E Houston is a big positive over the Dallas office. Both those Houston offices have free rein to make equity partners for the firm. I would say Latham has a bit less power relative to the firm, there just isn't a partner in the Houston office who has as much power on the "firm committee" as a Fullenwider or Calder. Latham has done a great job making equity partners in that office though, so I wouldn't worry about it.

K&E is doing the highest level PE work (and its not close) and probably M&A in general, but I think you should also expect to bill the most hours there (but make no mistake, it won't be materially more). You should expect to bill between 2300-2500 at each of these shops if you are good (and want "max" bonus). So if you want the most "firm" exit options I would say if you start at Kirkland and do PE work, you can easily go to any firm in Texas. V&E is a bit more "full service" in that they will let associates do both M&A and capital markets for longer, which is a good skill set, but also means as they get senior they are behind their brethren who only did M&A or capital markets work all those years. LW has the strongest capital markets practice and its a big focus of their shop, but they have brought on more M&A young talent in recent years, so they are picking up in that space as well. Neither V&E nor LW has a huge PE practice in Houston and I only mention that because PE is all the rage right now, so some people think they want to do it before they know what it is.

Having read your whole post, I am not swayed. I don’t believe for a second that K&E only gave the boot to horrible associates. Biglaw firms don’t operate that competently. But even if you are right, and that many horrible associates actually did exist at K&E Houston, that’s still absurd and embarrassing (but just for different reasons).

One doesn’t need to be an expert on the Houston market to know that K&E is the wrong choice for an OP who has two far superior options. K&E treats associates like trash and shouldn’t even be a part of this conversation.

It was less than 10 associates across all Texas offices (I think as low as 5? not sure) - not even just in Houston. It is very easy to see a 12 month hours count of 1400 when things have been busy and know someone has checked out.

I personally know two stealthed K&E associates who claim to have been pacing over 2000 hours. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It’s gotta be Latham or V&E here.

oh wait, so they didn't say "yeah, I was really bad at the job and honestly didn't try very hard. Oh also, my hours were really low because I was trying to hide"? I am shocked, usually when someone who is bad gets fired because they were bad, they love to talk about how bad they are!

By your logic, a firm could fire literally anybody and give any explanation for doing so — no matter how far fetched — and you’d continue to claim the victims are simply ashamed to admit how bad they are. K&E is toxic, and OP should choose job security over whatever bullshit amenities K&E is offering.

[LittleRedCorvette]

Ignoring all the posts to say: V&E is the clear winner based on votes...

Where are you leaning, OP?

[Anonymous User]

On the PE Side, KE/LW.

LW is not a PE player. Certainly they have work, but a long way behind KE.

Agree. KE definitely more active. Only concern might be the work environment. Some people seem to love it. Biggest pro is high quality legal work. Big firm but they hire smart people from what I’ve seen.

[Anonymous User]

I think it’s obvious that OP is most likely to be fired at K&E. They already hit Houston hard — it’s a large satellite office, which is historically where biglaw has made the harshest cuts.

for V&E, being the HQ is a positive thing. But Texas firms tend not to have 100% offer rates for summers.

My take here is that it’d be insane to take K&E Houston here. Personally I’d probably take Latham but I think V&E is also a very defensible choice.

This response is so out of touch with reality, I don't understand why people post responses when they have no idea what they are talking about. I am at one of these shops, have friends at the other two (think my closest friends for many years) and we very often compare notes. All 3 of these places are doing well in Houston. V&E is struggling a bit to retain talent because K&E/LW (even Simpson) are just able to pay their partners more (look at the ranks between V&Es junior partners and senior partners, there is almost no one left in M&A in Houston and they are now at those 3 shops). You can take that as risk or opportunity, depending on how you look at things. Unlikely to be "fired" at any of these places as long as you work hard. The firings at K&E were exclusively people who had completely given up on the job (read really low hours AND non-responsive relative to biglaw expectations or quit paying attention to detail). If anyone tells you different, they are lying/don't know (and my info is not coming from share partners at KE that are just trying to save face, its from senior associates and NSPs). V&E also did some "firing", if you want to call it that, they are just smaller and its easier to cover telling a couple associates to find a new job. All of these shops give a long "severance" period to find something new. Firms cut the worst associates every year, and good associates at that firm are grateful because working in biglaw with a midlevel who doesn't give a shit is how a hard job becomes the worst job.

V&E having a Houston HQ is a huge positive. The decision makers are all there. If you can become Keith's guy, you will make it. V&E also does the best job helping its "fired" and "passed up" associates find in-house positions. K&E and LW have not gotten to their level just yet. That said, K&E Houston is very similar in power terms in that Calder has a huge say in K&E firmwide (and in Texas he calls the shots with very little external pressure since TX is performing so well frimwide), so I would say going to K&E Houston is a big positive over the Dallas office. Both those Houston offices have free rein to make equity partners for the firm. I would say Latham has a bit less power relative to the firm, there just isn't a partner in the Houston office who has as much power on the "firm committee" as a Fullenwider or Calder. Latham has done a great job making equity partners in that office though, so I wouldn't worry about it.

K&E is doing the highest level PE work (and its not close) and probably M&A in general, but I think you should also expect to bill the most hours there (but make no mistake, it won't be materially more). You should expect to bill between 2300-2500 at each of these shops if you are good (and want "max" bonus). So if you want the most "firm" exit options I would say if you start at Kirkland and do PE work, you can easily go to any firm in Texas. V&E is a bit more "full service" in that they will let associates do both M&A and capital markets for longer, which is a good skill set, but also means as they get senior they are behind their brethren who only did M&A or capital markets work all those years. LW has the strongest capital markets practice and its a big focus of their shop, but they have brought on more M&A young talent in recent years, so they are picking up in that space as well. Neither V&E nor LW has a huge PE practice in Houston and I only mention that because PE is all the rage right now, so some people think they want to do it before they know what it is.

Having read your whole post, I am not swayed. I don’t believe for a second that K&E only gave the boot to horrible associates. Biglaw firms don’t operate that competently. But even if you are right, and that many horrible associates actually did exist at K&E Houston, that’s still absurd and embarrassing (but just for different reasons).

One doesn’t need to be an expert on the Houston market to know that K&E is the wrong choice for an OP who has two far superior options. K&E treats associates like trash and shouldn’t even be a part of this conversation.

It was less than 10 associates across all Texas offices (I think as low as 5? not sure) - not even just in Houston. It is very easy to see a 12 month hours count of 1400 when things have been busy and know someone has checked out.

I personally know two stealthed K&E associates who claim to have been pacing over 2000 hours. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It’s gotta be Latham or V&E here.

oh wait, so they didn't say "yeah, I was really bad at the job and honestly didn't try very hard. Oh also, my hours were really low because I was trying to hide"? I am shocked, usually when someone who is bad gets fired because they were bad, they love to talk about how bad they are!

By your logic, a firm could fire literally anybody and give any explanation for doing so — no matter how far fetched — and you’d continue to claim the victims are simply ashamed to admit how bad they are. K&E is toxic, and OP should choose job security over whatever bullshit amenities K&E is offering.

No, by my logic, a firm does not fire associates for no reason. If you are billing over 2,000 (and brining in close to $2m a year), you are not getting fired. Why would they fire someone making them money who is doing a good job? Give me a break. When people say "oh yeah layoffs not based on performance", well, there are a lot of associates still there - the decision wasn't made blindly.

[Anonymous User]

Ignoring all the posts to say: V&E is the clear winner based on votes...

Where are you leaning, OP?

OP here

Oddly enough, I'm leaning towards LW. VE is great and the feedback on the firm has been great but it worries me to know that they are still losing people to the national firms. It's definitely held onto its piece of the pie, but I'm not sure what the firm will look like a few years down the line. As for KE, the softs are great (cafeteria, etc), but I've heard things about the firm as a whole that make me a bit hesitant. LW is obviously going to work me to the bone too but I haven't gotten the impression that it would be as bad as KE in terms off treating me like a body to throw at a matter (I know it's still BL and money talks at the end of the day, but I'd rather get a nice email asking me to work 12 hours on a weekend as opposed to some random partner just shouting instructions). That said, LW has gotten the least amount of votes and that also worries me a bit.

Am I missing some huge piece of the puzzle?

[Anonymous User]

This response is so out of touch with reality, I don't understand why people post responses when they have no idea what they are talking about. I am at one of these shops, have friends at the other two (think my closest friends for many years) and we very often compare notes. All 3 of these places are doing well in Houston. V&E is struggling a bit to retain talent because K&E/LW (even Simpson) are just able to pay their partners more (look at the ranks between V&Es junior partners and senior partners, there is almost no one left in M&A in Houston and they are now at those 3 shops). You can take that as risk or opportunity, depending on how you look at things. Unlikely to be "fired" at any of these places as long as you work hard. The firings at K&E were exclusively people who had completely given up on the job (read really low hours AND non-responsive relative to biglaw expectations or quit paying attention to detail). If anyone tells you different, they are lying/don't know (and my info is not coming from share partners at KE that are just trying to save face, its from senior associates and NSPs). V&E also did some "firing", if you want to call it that, they are just smaller and its easier to cover telling a couple associates to find a new job. All of these shops give a long "severance" period to find something new. Firms cut the worst associates every year, and good associates at that firm are grateful because working in biglaw with a midlevel who doesn't give a shit is how a hard job becomes the worst job.

V&E having a Houston HQ is a huge positive. The decision makers are all there. If you can become Keith's guy, you will make it. V&E also does the best job helping its "fired" and "passed up" associates find in-house positions. K&E and LW have not gotten to their level just yet. That said, K&E Houston is very similar in power terms in that Calder has a huge say in K&E firmwide (and in Texas he calls the shots with very little external pressure since TX is performing so well frimwide), so I would say going to K&E Houston is a big positive over the Dallas office. Both those Houston offices have free rein to make equity partners for the firm. I would say Latham has a bit less power relative to the firm, there just isn't a partner in the Houston office who has as much power on the "firm committee" as a Fullenwider or Calder. Latham has done a great job making equity partners in that office though, so I wouldn't worry about it.

K&E is doing the highest level PE work (and its not close) and probably M&A in general, but I think you should also expect to bill the most hours there (but make no mistake, it won't be materially more). You should expect to bill between 2300-2500 at each of these shops if you are good (and want "max" bonus). So if you want the most "firm" exit options I would say if you start at Kirkland and do PE work, you can easily go to any firm in Texas. V&E is a bit more "full service" in that they will let associates do both M&A and capital markets for longer, which is a good skill set, but also means as they get senior they are behind their brethren who only did M&A or capital markets work all those years. LW has the strongest capital markets practice and its a big focus of their shop, but they have brought on more M&A young talent in recent years, so they are picking up in that space as well. Neither V&E nor LW has a huge PE practice in Houston and I only mention that because PE is all the rage right now, so some people think they want to do it before they know what it is.

Having read your whole post, I am not swayed. I don’t believe for a second that K&E only gave the boot to horrible associates. Biglaw firms don’t operate that competently. But even if you are right, and that many horrible associates actually did exist at K&E Houston, that’s still absurd and embarrassing (but just for different reasons).

One doesn’t need to be an expert on the Houston market to know that K&E is the wrong choice for an OP who has two far superior options. K&E treats associates like trash and shouldn’t even be a part of this conversation.

It was less than 10 associates across all Texas offices (I think as low as 5? not sure) - not even just in Houston. It is very easy to see a 12 month hours count of 1400 when things have been busy and know someone has checked out.

I personally know two stealthed K&E associates who claim to have been pacing over 2000 hours. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It’s gotta be Latham or V&E here.

oh wait, so they didn't say "yeah, I was really bad at the job and honestly didn't try very hard. Oh also, my hours were really low because I was trying to hide"? I am shocked, usually when someone who is bad gets fired because they were bad, they love to talk about how bad they are!

By your logic, a firm could fire literally anybody and give any explanation for doing so — no matter how far fetched — and you’d continue to claim the victims are simply ashamed to admit how bad they are. K&E is toxic, and OP should choose job security over whatever bullshit amenities K&E is offering.

No, by my logic, a firm does not fire associates for no reason. If you are billing over 2,000 (and brining in close to $2m a year), you are not getting fired. Why would they fire someone making them money who is doing a good job? Give me a break. When people say "oh yeah layoffs not based on performance", well, there are a lot of associates still there - the decision wasn't made blindly.

Oh you sweet summer child. Even someone billing 1000 is making the firm money. The reason they fire someone billing 2000+ is so the partners can make even more money… duh. Plus they can reallocate that work to associates they like better / are politically better positioned.

[Anonymous User]

Ignoring all the posts to say: V&E is the clear winner based on votes...

Where are you leaning, OP?

OP here

Oddly enough, I'm leaning towards LW. VE is great and the feedback on the firm has been great but it worries me to know that they are still losing people to the national firms. It's definitely held onto its piece of the pie, but I'm not sure what the firm will look like a few years down the line. As for KE, the softs are great (cafeteria, etc), but I've heard things about the firm as a whole that make me a bit hesitant. LW is obviously going to work me to the bone too but I haven't gotten the impression that it would be as bad as KE in terms off treating me like a body to throw at a matter (I know it's still BL and money talks at the end of the day, but I'd rather get a nice email asking me to work 12 hours on a weekend as opposed to some random partner just shouting instructions). That said, LW has gotten the least amount of votes and that also worries me a bit.

Am I missing some huge piece of the puzzle?

Latham simply isn’t as entrenched and doesn’t have as strong of a foothold in that market, versus the other two firms. But it’s the best firm overall out of the three, if you take the firms as a whole.

[emc91]

I’m in Houston and I wouldn’t work at any of these firms because I value my life more than some weird notion of prestige, but I’d choose Latham and it’s not close. K&E sucks and V&E is too Texas good ol boys club.

[Anonymous User]

Ignoring all the posts to say: V&E is the clear winner based on votes...

Where are you leaning, OP?

OP here

Oddly enough, I'm leaning towards LW. VE is great and the feedback on the firm has been great but it worries me to know that they are still losing people to the national firms. It's definitely held onto its piece of the pie, but I'm not sure what the firm will look like a few years down the line. As for KE, the softs are great (cafeteria, etc), but I've heard things about the firm as a whole that make me a bit hesitant. LW is obviously going to work me to the bone too but I haven't gotten the impression that it would be as bad as KE in terms off treating me like a body to throw at a matter (I know it's still BL and money talks at the end of the day, but I'd rather get a nice email asking me to work 12 hours on a weekend as opposed to some random partner just shouting instructions). That said, LW has gotten the least amount of votes and that also worries me a bit.

Am I missing some huge piece of the puzzle?

Latham simply isn’t as entrenched and doesn’t have as strong of a foothold in that market, versus the other two firms. But it’s the best firm overall out of the three, if you take the firms as a whole.

LW isn't as entrenched? I feel like it's usually in the discussion for the highest tier for transactional work in Houston and has had a pretty solid amount of deal flow (at least in terms of $). Or do you mean entrenched in another sense?

[Anonymous User]

Ignoring all the posts to say: V&E is the clear winner based on votes...

Where are you leaning, OP?

OP here

Oddly enough, I'm leaning towards LW. VE is great and the feedback on the firm has been great but it worries me to know that they are still losing people to the national firms. It's definitely held onto its piece of the pie, but I'm not sure what the firm will look like a few years down the line. As for KE, the softs are great (cafeteria, etc), but I've heard things about the firm as a whole that make me a bit hesitant. LW is obviously going to work me to the bone too but I haven't gotten the impression that it would be as bad as KE in terms off treating me like a body to throw at a matter (I know it's still BL and money talks at the end of the day, but I'd rather get a nice email asking me to work 12 hours on a weekend as opposed to some random partner just shouting instructions). That said, LW has gotten the least amount of votes and that also worries me a bit.

Am I missing some huge piece of the puzzle?

Latham simply isn’t as entrenched and doesn’t have as strong of a foothold in that market, versus the other two firms. But it’s the best firm overall out of the three, if you take the firms as a whole.

LW isn't as entrenched? I feel like it's usually in the discussion for the highest tier for transactional work in Houston and has had a pretty solid amount of deal flow (at least in terms of $). Or do you mean entrenched in another sense?

If LW had 2 or so partners leave and the clients didn't stay, it would drastically change the office.

Unrelated to entrenchment (or maybe not): talking to folks at all three of these firms, my understanding is that VE and KE aggressively (in a good way) help place associates in house -- as a part of the system. LW does not do any of that, or at least not in a meaningful way.