Texas - Latham vs. Kirkland Forum

[Anonymous User]

Trying to decide where to begin a career in Houston. Focused on transactional law. I'm leaning towards LW, but everyone around me seems to choose KE (maybe for the signing bonus, bigger SA classes so you see more people go there, etc.). What am I missing? From what I gather, the two are peers in the market, though KE is growing like wildfire, and KE is the king of PE. The latest deal tables also show Sidley growing fast, so is LW's position in the market as part of the big three under threat? Curious about what everyone's outlooks for the shops are.

[Anonymous User]

Trying to decide where to begin a career in Houston. Focused on transactional law. I'm leaning towards LW, but everyone around me seems to choose KE (maybe for the signing bonus, bigger SA classes so you see more people go there, etc.). What am I missing? From what I gather, the two are peers in the market, though KE is growing like wildfire, and KE is the king of PE. The latest deal tables also show Sidley growing fast, so is LW's position in the market as part of the big three under threat? Curious about what everyone's outlooks for the shops are.

They're largely the same. I work at one of them and have friends in the other. Both are free market shops. Both will ask you for as many hours as you can handle (once you prove you're valuable) and both will set you up well for life after biglaw. If you're dead set on PE you should probably go to KE. If you're dead set on CapM you should probably go to LW. However, you probably don't have any idea what either of those really means and, as such, you should probably choose the one where you like more people. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible to do as a law student so you're more or less flipping a coin with this choice. If someone told me they chose KE Houston over LW Houston because of the chef in the office I'd probably think that was a justifiable reason. They're that similar.

Would like to dispel any idea that one is any more humane than the other. This is biglaw, with the same pressures as other biglaw. You see a lot more energy work in this market than in NY, but the hours and stress are similar.

[Anonymous User]

Trying to decide where to begin a career in Houston. Focused on transactional law. I'm leaning towards LW, but everyone around me seems to choose KE (maybe for the signing bonus, bigger SA classes so you see more people go there, etc.). What am I missing? From what I gather, the two are peers in the market, though KE is growing like wildfire, and KE is the king of PE. The latest deal tables also show Sidley growing fast, so is LW's position in the market as part of the big three under threat? Curious about what everyone's outlooks for the shops are.

They're largely the same. I work at one of them and have friends in the other. Both are free market shops. Both will ask you for as many hours as you can handle (once you prove you're valuable) and both will set you up well for life after biglaw. If you're dead set on PE you should probably go to KE. If you're dead set on CapM you should probably go to LW. However, you probably don't have any idea what either of those really means and, as such, you should probably choose the one where you like more people. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible to do as a law student so you're more or less flipping a coin with this choice. If someone told me they chose KE Houston over LW Houston because of the chef in the office I'd probably think that was a justifiable reason. They're that similar.

Would like to dispel any idea that one is any more humane than the other. This is biglaw, with the same pressures as other biglaw. You see a lot more energy work in this market than in NY, but the hours and stress are similar.

Agree with all of this having worked at one of the two for a long time now (in biglaw years). I do think LW is on a slight downward trajectory compared to KE, GDC and Sidley.

[Anonymous User]

Trying to decide where to begin a career in Houston. Focused on transactional law. I'm leaning towards LW, but everyone around me seems to choose KE (maybe for the signing bonus, bigger SA classes so you see more people go there, etc.). What am I missing? From what I gather, the two are peers in the market, though KE is growing like wildfire, and KE is the king of PE. The latest deal tables also show Sidley growing fast, so is LW's position in the market as part of the big three under threat? Curious about what everyone's outlooks for the shops are.

They're largely the same. I work at one of them and have friends in the other. Both are free market shops. Both will ask you for as many hours as you can handle (once you prove you're valuable) and both will set you up well for life after biglaw. If you're dead set on PE you should probably go to KE. If you're dead set on CapM you should probably go to LW. However, you probably don't have any idea what either of those really means and, as such, you should probably choose the one where you like more people. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible to do as a law student so you're more or less flipping a coin with this choice. If someone told me they chose KE Houston over LW Houston because of the chef in the office I'd probably think that was a justifiable reason. They're that similar.

Would like to dispel any idea that one is any more humane than the other. This is biglaw, with the same pressures as other biglaw. You see a lot more energy work in this market than in NY, but the hours and stress are similar.

Agree with all of this having worked at one of the two for a long time now (in biglaw years). I do think LW is on a slight downward trajectory compared to KE, GDC and Sidley.

Would love to hear why LW is trending downwards vs. the other national firms.

[Anonymous User]

Trying to decide where to begin a career in Houston. Focused on transactional law. I'm leaning towards LW, but everyone around me seems to choose KE (maybe for the signing bonus, bigger SA classes so you see more people go there, etc.). What am I missing? From what I gather, the two are peers in the market, though KE is growing like wildfire, and KE is the king of PE. The latest deal tables also show Sidley growing fast, so is LW's position in the market as part of the big three under threat? Curious about what everyone's outlooks for the shops are.

They're largely the same. I work at one of them and have friends in the other. Both are free market shops. Both will ask you for as many hours as you can handle (once you prove you're valuable) and both will set you up well for life after biglaw. If you're dead set on PE you should probably go to KE. If you're dead set on CapM you should probably go to LW. However, you probably don't have any idea what either of those really means and, as such, you should probably choose the one where you like more people. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible to do as a law student so you're more or less flipping a coin with this choice. If someone told me they chose KE Houston over LW Houston because of the chef in the office I'd probably think that was a justifiable reason. They're that similar.

Would like to dispel any idea that one is any more humane than the other. This is biglaw, with the same pressures as other biglaw. You see a lot more energy work in this market than in NY, but the hours and stress are similar.

Agree with all of this having worked at one of the two for a long time now (in biglaw years). I do think LW is on a slight downward trajectory compared to KE, GDC and Sidley.

Would love to hear why LW is trending downwards vs. the other national firms.

1. Their big PE move doesn't seem to be panning out -- and they're having a hard time holding onto PE associates.

2. It is a big revolving door for laterals (and they've hired a lot of them).

3. Office doesn't seem to be making partners, which cannot be good for morale.

4. Associate numbers are shrinking -- cannot hold on to local grown people (or laterals, see #2).


The office has done really well for the last 10 years and isn't going anywhere -- it is just at its midlife crisis, and it is not clear that they're doing anything to take it to the "next level" or be known for anything specific. Kirkland is a PE powerhouse and the whole group of other firms can do capital markets. Is there enough work for "public company work" to be LW Houston's "thing?" Seems doubtful.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland handing out signing bonuses to first years?

[Anonymous User]

Trying to decide where to begin a career in Houston. Focused on transactional law. I'm leaning towards LW, but everyone around me seems to choose KE (maybe for the signing bonus, bigger SA classes so you see more people go there, etc.). What am I missing? From what I gather, the two are peers in the market, though KE is growing like wildfire, and KE is the king of PE. The latest deal tables also show Sidley growing fast, so is LW's position in the market as part of the big three under threat? Curious about what everyone's outlooks for the shops are.

They're largely the same. I work at one of them and have friends in the other. Both are free market shops. Both will ask you for as many hours as you can handle (once you prove you're valuable) and both will set you up well for life after biglaw. If you're dead set on PE you should probably go to KE. If you're dead set on CapM you should probably go to LW. However, you probably don't have any idea what either of those really means and, as such, you should probably choose the one where you like more people. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible to do as a law student so you're more or less flipping a coin with this choice. If someone told me they chose KE Houston over LW Houston because of the chef in the office I'd probably think that was a justifiable reason. They're that similar.

Would like to dispel any idea that one is any more humane than the other. This is biglaw, with the same pressures as other biglaw. You see a lot more energy work in this market than in NY, but the hours and stress are similar.

I work at LW NY and agree with this. One key difference is that LW has a staffer. The staffers job is to staff the deals that no one wants to do quite frankly and I would rather work in a free market system so that you don't have to deal with a staffer who is breathing down your neck to take crappy work. The other difference is that KE will make you a non-share partner at year 6 (about 50% get promoted to non-share partner at that level). I don't know what happens to the other 50% that don't make it.

[Anonymous User]

Trying to decide where to begin a career in Houston. Focused on transactional law. I'm leaning towards LW, but everyone around me seems to choose KE (maybe for the signing bonus, bigger SA classes so you see more people go there, etc.). What am I missing? From what I gather, the two are peers in the market, though KE is growing like wildfire, and KE is the king of PE. The latest deal tables also show Sidley growing fast, so is LW's position in the market as part of the big three under threat? Curious about what everyone's outlooks for the shops are.

They're largely the same. I work at one of them and have friends in the other. Both are free market shops. Both will ask you for as many hours as you can handle (once you prove you're valuable) and both will set you up well for life after biglaw. If you're dead set on PE you should probably go to KE. If you're dead set on CapM you should probably go to LW. However, you probably don't have any idea what either of those really means and, as such, you should probably choose the one where you like more people. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible to do as a law student so you're more or less flipping a coin with this choice. If someone told me they chose KE Houston over LW Houston because of the chef in the office I'd probably think that was a justifiable reason. They're that similar.

Would like to dispel any idea that one is any more humane than the other. This is biglaw, with the same pressures as other biglaw. You see a lot more energy work in this market than in NY, but the hours and stress are similar.

I work at LW NY and agree with this. One key difference is that LW has a staffer. The staffers job is to staff the deals that no one wants to do quite frankly and I would rather work in a free market system so that you don't have to deal with a staffer who is breathing down your neck to take crappy work. The other difference is that KE will make you a non-share partner at year 6 (about 50% get promoted to non-share partner at that level). I don't know what happens to the other 50% that don't make it.

LW Houston does not have a staffer.

[Anonymous User]

Is it a combo of staffer and free market? How are they only staffing the “bad deals?” Also, it’s not exactly the busiest of times for corporate, are people really trying to dodge work?

[nealric]

Is it a combo of staffer and free market? How are they only staffing the “bad deals?” Also, it’s not exactly the busiest of times for corporate, are people really trying to dodge work?

Not a comment about Latham/Kirkland specifically, but I think it's sort of inherent to the role that staffers tend not to assign the best projects. The best work tends to come directly from partners to associates they like working with. Partners send work to staffers when they don't have someone in mind. Best case, they are partners who are new to the firm and don't have a go-to or just have a lot more work than their go-to associates can handle. Worst case scenario, they are using the staffer because they are toxic personalities nobody wants to work for or give out terrible assignments. The extent to which staffers are used can vary widely between firms. Some firms are 100% free-market (i.e. no staffer), but I don't think there are any that ONLY allow work to come from a staffer.

As a side note, even people who are slow may try to dodge work for a number of reasons. It could be from a partner they hate working with, or it could be that taking the assignment could foreclose a much better one that would sustain them over a longer term. Or, they could just be burnt out and headed for the door.

[Anonymous User]

Is it a combo of staffer and free market? How are they only staffing the “bad deals?” Also, it’s not exactly the busiest of times for corporate, are people really trying to dodge work?

Not a comment about Latham/Kirkland specifically, but I think it's sort of inherent to the role that staffers tend not to assign the best projects. The best work tends to come directly from partners to associates they like working with. Partners send work to staffers when they don't have someone in mind. Best case, they are partners who are new to the firm and don't have a go-to or just have a lot more work than their go-to associates can handle. Worst case scenario, they are using the staffer because they are toxic personalities nobody wants to work for or give out terrible assignments. The extent to which staffers are used can vary widely between firms. Some firms are 100% free-market (i.e. no staffer), but I don't think there are any that ONLY allow work to come from a staffer.

As a side note, even people who are slow may try to dodge work for a number of reasons. It could be from a partner they hate working with, or it could be that taking the assignment could foreclose a much better one that would sustain them over a longer term. Or, they could just be burnt out and headed for the door.

Agree with all of this. I'll only add that there can also be additional issues clouding things like weird cross-office work pollination, which, from my people who I know that work at both KE and LW Houston, is specifically an issue with the new Austin offices. In a completely free market system when work is slow, be extra careful about taking on deals from other offices. If you don't know the person asking you to do the deal, there's a stronger than decent chance that it's coming from someone who is having trouble staffing the deal with bodies from their own office. In a slow-paced corporate market, that's a huge warning signal.

One final note, not everyone is trying to make partner in biglaw. Generally, if you're at median hours in your class/group, unless you've really made someone angry, you're generally able to fly under the radar until you're a midlevel. And then from that point you probably have a year to find another job, whether it's a firm job or otherwise. There are people who specifically take advantage of this. One might see how you could stay at a firm for your first 2-3 years, lateral to another firm, be purposely slow to ramp up, lateral again after a year, do the same, and then suddenly you have 4-5 years' experience, loans taken care of, a decent nest egg (for Houston anyway) and can find a job better suited for long-term happiness. I'm not saying this is happening in these offices, but I'm also not not saying it.

[Anonymous User]

Is it a combo of staffer and free market? How are they only staffing the “bad deals?” Also, it’s not exactly the busiest of times for corporate, are people really trying to dodge work?

Not a comment about Latham/Kirkland specifically, but I think it's sort of inherent to the role that staffers tend not to assign the best projects. The best work tends to come directly from partners to associates they like working with. Partners send work to staffers when they don't have someone in mind. Best case, they are partners who are new to the firm and don't have a go-to or just have a lot more work than their go-to associates can handle. Worst case scenario, they are using the staffer because they are toxic personalities nobody wants to work for or give out terrible assignments. The extent to which staffers are used can vary widely between firms. Some firms are 100% free-market (i.e. no staffer), but I don't think there are any that ONLY allow work to come from a staffer.

As a side note, even people who are slow may try to dodge work for a number of reasons. It could be from a partner they hate working with, or it could be that taking the assignment could foreclose a much better one that would sustain them over a longer term. Or, they could just be burnt out and headed for the door.

Agree with all of this. I'll only add that there can also be additional issues clouding things like weird cross-office work pollination, which, from my people who I know that work at both KE and LW Houston, is specifically an issue with the new Austin offices. In a completely free market system when work is slow, be extra careful about taking on deals from other offices. If you don't know the person asking you to do the deal, there's a stronger than decent chance that it's coming from someone who is having trouble staffing the deal with bodies from their own office. In a slow-paced corporate market, that's a huge warning signal.

One final note, not everyone is trying to make partner in biglaw. Generally, if you're at median hours in your class/group, unless you've really made someone angry, you're generally able to fly under the radar until you're a midlevel. And then from that point you probably have a year to find another job, whether it's a firm job or otherwise. There are people who specifically take advantage of this. One might see how you could stay at a firm for your first 2-3 years, lateral to another firm, be purposely slow to ramp up, lateral again after a year, do the same, and then suddenly you have 4-5 years' experience, loans taken care of, a decent nest egg (for Houston anyway) and can find a job better suited for long-term happiness. I'm not saying this is happening in these offices, but I'm also not not saying it.

Can you explain more about the issue with the Austin offices? I’m considering applying there but was worried about integration and overall deal flow