Litigation: Kirkland (NY) vs. Latham (NY) Forum

[beforeithaka]

Interested in general commercial lit; not sure about specific industry/group.

I see that K&E is Band 1 elite for general commercial lit on Chambers, while Latham is Band 2 elite. Is there any meaningful difference in the quality, actual or perceived, of each of these firms' litigation practices in NY? Are they seen as peers in litigation?

Anyone have insight about the partners in these groups?

Interested in clerking (after working first) and potentially working as an AUSA further down the road. Are there any differences in the exit opportunities from these two NY offices if I wanna clerk or be an AUSA in the future? What about exit opps for lateraling?

If the quality of the practices are the same, should I weigh quality of life more heavily? My assumption (correct me if wrong) is that Latham might be a somewhat more tolerable place to work, even if it's still a sweatshop?

Would appreciate any insight into working in lit at either of these places in NY.

[beforeithaka]

Thoughts, anyone?

[Anonymous User]

According to the megathread on the topic, Kirkland does not allow for MBDR. Big issue if true.

Would talk to people to get a sense of culture and also gauge the relevance of benefits stuff like the above.

[beforeithaka]

According to the megathread on the topic, Kirkland does not allow for MBDR. Big issue if true.

Would talk to people to get a sense of culture and also gauge the relevance of benefits stuff like the above.

Thanks for the tip about the MBDR! Would not have known otherwise.

Do you think the two options are close enough that I should basically start looking at other stuff like benefits?

[Anonymous User]

Preftige wise, the two are roughly on par, so yes, I would think about other things like culture/benefits.

Anecdotally, everyone I know at K&E either hates it or is a K&E Kool-Aid-drinking jerk. Most of the Latham folks (aside from a K&E->Latham lateral) were pretty chill. K&E attracts a weird sort of elitism - it's like Tom Brady meets that bro you know who used to be in finance who brags about how much $$$ he made.

Both have pretty robust long term NEP (or similar) roles. That is, even if you don't make partner, there's a good chance that if you're decent and willing to grind you can make $500k-$1m into perpetuity.

Note that there are some offices/practice areas where there are distinctions. For example, in my niche area of lit - K&E already has a strong reputation, but Latham is an up-and-comer, which is an interesting (and potentially rewarding) dynamic to join. If it's worth anything to you, I've considered a lateral to Latham (they specifically recruited me), but I'd never ever jump ship to K&E.

I don't know much about NYC/exit options/AUSA, though I don't think either have been mentioned much on this forum when people talk about the AUSA route (Paul Weis, Wilmer, S&C, and some others seem to be better candidates). Are you a rising 2L? Have you applied elsewhere/do you have offers at just K&E/Latham?

[beforeithaka]

Preftige wise, the two are roughly on par, so yes, I would think about other things like culture/benefits.

Anecdotally, everyone I know at K&E either hates it or is a K&E Kool-Aid-drinking jerk. Most of the Latham folks (aside from a K&E->Latham lateral) were pretty chill. K&E attracts a weird sort of elitism - it's like Tom Brady meets that bro you know who used to be in finance who brags about how much $$$ he made.

Both have pretty robust long term NEP (or similar) roles. That is, even if you don't make partner, there's a good chance that if you're decent and willing to grind you can make $500k-$1m into perpetuity.

Note that there are some offices/practice areas where there are distinctions. For example, in my niche area of lit - K&E already has a strong reputation, but Latham is an up-and-comer, which is an interesting (and potentially rewarding) dynamic to join. If it's worth anything to you, I've considered a lateral to Latham (they specifically recruited me), but I'd never ever jump ship to K&E.

I don't know much about NYC/exit options/AUSA, though I don't think either have been mentioned much on this forum when people talk about the AUSA route (Paul Weis, Wilmer, S&C, and some others seem to be better candidates). Are you a rising 2L? Have you applied elsewhere/do you have offers at just K&E/Latham?

Thanks for the great advice!

I have offers at other places that I'm not as seriously considering for one reason or another, and it's come down to K&E/Latham for the final decision.

Of the two, it does seem like, at a general level, K&E is more well-known (and perhaps a little more well-regarded) for litigation, while Latham seems a bit more transactional heavy (but not quite as one-sided as a place like Simpson or Weil). Is this an accurate impression of the market perceptions? What do you mean by it's an interesting and potentially rewarding dynamic to join?

Honestly, benefits seem roughly on par to me, apart from what the poster above mentioned, so I'm not really sure how to distinguish the two based on that.

What questions should I be asking at this point of these two options?

[Anonymous User]

(Previous anon here)

Of the two, it does seem like, at a general level, K&E is more well-known (and perhaps a little more well-regarded) for litigation, while Latham seems a bit more transactional heavy (but not quite as one-sided as a place like Simpson or Weil). Is this an accurate impression of the market perceptions? What do you mean by it's an interesting and potentially rewarding dynamic to join?

Caveat that I'm less familiar with NYC, but IMO I don't think there's enough of a difference here to make that a big deciding factor. Both are good at litigation and both are well known firms. For general lit, I don't think you're going to get materially better matters or work with materially better associates at one or the other.

What do you mean by it's an interesting and potentially rewarding dynamic to join?

To me, I was interested in the following: more opportunities both substantively and for partnership, prioritization at the management level/for firm politics, lots of laterals coming in with diverse perspectives. But these things can also be cast in a bad light: lots of work/understaffing, pressure to succeed/lass clout if the growth slows, culture clashes with non-homegrown folks.

Honestly, benefits seem roughly on par to me, apart from what the poster above mentioned, so I'm not really sure how to distinguish the two based on that.

Don't underestimate the power MBDR. You can save tens of thousands more each year with tax-free growth. If you plan to exit to government these will be your biggest savings years, and it's super useful to have those savings in a tax favored account.

What questions should I be asking at this point of these two options?

Culture. Think about it - you're going to be spending A LOT of time working over the next few years.
The culture can make or break that experience, and potentially cut short what would have otherwise been a good (or just lucrative) experience. There's a lot on the culture at both of these firms online. I won't rehash that here, but based on my experiences with both of them Latham seems to be a much better place to be.

[Anonymous User]

Would not recommend either of those firms if your goal is AUSA, but I think Kirkland is slightly better than Latham for that goal.

[beforeithaka]

(Previous anon here)

Of the two, it does seem like, at a general level, K&E is more well-known (and perhaps a little more well-regarded) for litigation, while Latham seems a bit more transactional heavy (but not quite as one-sided as a place like Simpson or Weil). Is this an accurate impression of the market perceptions? What do you mean by it's an interesting and potentially rewarding dynamic to join?

Caveat that I'm less familiar with NYC, but IMO I don't think there's enough of a difference here to make that a big deciding factor. Both are good at litigation and both are well known firms. For general lit, I don't think you're going to get materially better matters or work with materially better associates at one or the other.

What do you mean by it's an interesting and potentially rewarding dynamic to join?

To me, I was interested in the following: more opportunities both substantively and for partnership, prioritization at the management level/for firm politics, lots of laterals coming in with diverse perspectives. But these things can also be cast in a bad light: lots of work/understaffing, pressure to succeed/lass clout if the growth slows, culture clashes with non-homegrown folks.

Honestly, benefits seem roughly on par to me, apart from what the poster above mentioned, so I'm not really sure how to distinguish the two based on that.

Don't underestimate the power MBDR. You can save tens of thousands more each year with tax-free growth. If you plan to exit to government these will be your biggest savings years, and it's super useful to have those savings in a tax favored account.

What questions should I be asking at this point of these two options?

Culture. Think about it - you're going to be spending A LOT of time working over the next few years.
The culture can make or break that experience, and potentially cut short what would have otherwise been a good (or just lucrative) experience. There's a lot on the culture at both of these firms online. I won't rehash that here, but based on my experiences with both of them Latham seems to be a much better place to be.

First of all, just wanted to say thank you for your advice on this!

I was wondering if you could speak to the assignment system at each. The appeal of the free market system seems to be that, if you are the type of person who tends to succeed at a place like K&E (open assignment suits you), you could get more substantive experience early on. I'm not sure if this is true at a place at Latham, which has a staffer and seems much more structured overall. How did you look for early substantive experience in a firm?

Another worry I have is whether the unassigned system (for 1.5 years) at Latham means that you're not getting as focused/specialized training even compared to someone who's doing general litigation at another firm. If you're working on a gov investigation here, a M&A, transactional case there, a breach of contract case, then after 1.5 years deciding to do litigation, then are you worse off than an associate at another firm that's been doing litigation that whole time?

On culture: I did notice from speaking with partners and associates at both firms that, (1) they were all nice enough, (2) the K&E people tended to be a little more serious/no non-sense/intense, and while one or two of the Latham folks were like this too, others were more personable and casual. In my post-interview interactions with more lawyers, I was impressed with people from both places. But while I felt like I wanted to work with some of the K&E associates (who seemed just really driven and focused), I felt like I wanted to get to know one or two of the Latham associates, on a personal level, more. I know that firms generally send out their most personable people for interviews, so I'm not sure to what extent I can draw meaningful conclusions from my interview experiences. And I also know that people might leave and I might not work with these people that I liked from my interviews. Also, these are offices of 800/900 people in NY, so I've no doubt that I'll meet people I like and don't like at each, and it seems hard to justify extrapolating from the small sample size to assign to each firm a "personality." Then again, maybe culture is a separate thing from what individual people can be like. In sum, I'm unsure as to how much I should weigh my very limited first-hand interactions with the people at each firm.

[Anonymous User]

(Previous anon here)

Of the two, it does seem like, at a general level, K&E is more well-known (and perhaps a little more well-regarded) for litigation, while Latham seems a bit more transactional heavy (but not quite as one-sided as a place like Simpson or Weil). Is this an accurate impression of the market perceptions? What do you mean by it's an interesting and potentially rewarding dynamic to join?

Caveat that I'm less familiar with NYC, but IMO I don't think there's enough of a difference here to make that a big deciding factor. Both are good at litigation and both are well known firms. For general lit, I don't think you're going to get materially better matters or work with materially better associates at one or the other.

What do you mean by it's an interesting and potentially rewarding dynamic to join?

To me, I was interested in the following: more opportunities both substantively and for partnership, prioritization at the management level/for firm politics, lots of laterals coming in with diverse perspectives. But these things can also be cast in a bad light: lots of work/understaffing, pressure to succeed/lass clout if the growth slows, culture clashes with non-homegrown folks.

Honestly, benefits seem roughly on par to me, apart from what the poster above mentioned, so I'm not really sure how to distinguish the two based on that.

Don't underestimate the power MBDR. You can save tens of thousands more each year with tax-free growth. If you plan to exit to government these will be your biggest savings years, and it's super useful to have those savings in a tax favored account.

What questions should I be asking at this point of these two options?

Culture. Think about it - you're going to be spending A LOT of time working over the next few years.
The culture can make or break that experience, and potentially cut short what would have otherwise been a good (or just lucrative) experience. There's a lot on the culture at both of these firms online. I won't rehash that here, but based on my experiences with both of them Latham seems to be a much better place to be.

First of all, just wanted to say thank you for your advice on this!

I was wondering if you could speak to the assignment system at each. The appeal of the free market system seems to be that, if you are the type of person who tends to succeed at a place like K&E (open assignment suits you), you could get more substantive experience early on. I'm not sure if this is true at a place at Latham, which has a staffer and seems much more structured overall. How did you look for early substantive experience in a firm?

Another worry I have is whether the unassigned system (for 1.5 years) at Latham means that you're not getting as focused/specialized training even compared to someone who's doing general litigation at another firm. If you're working on a gov investigation here, a M&A, transactional case there, a breach of contract case, then after 1.5 years deciding to do litigation, then are you worse off than an associate at another firm that's been doing litigation that whole time?

On culture: I did notice from speaking with partners and associates at both firms that, (1) they were all nice enough, (2) the K&E people tended to be a little more serious/no non-sense/intense, and while one or two of the Latham folks were like this too, others were more personable and casual. In my post-interview interactions with more lawyers, I was impressed with people from both places. But while I felt like I wanted to work with some of the K&E associates (who seemed just really driven and focused), I felt like I wanted to get to know one or two of the Latham associates, on a personal level, more. I know that firms generally send out their most personable people for interviews, so I'm not sure to what extent I can draw meaningful conclusions from my interview experiences. And I also know that people might leave and I might not work with these people that I liked from my interviews. Also, these are offices of 800/900 people in NY, so I've no doubt that I'll meet people I like and don't like at each, and it seems hard to justify extrapolating from the small sample size to assign to each firm a "personality." Then again, maybe culture is a separate thing from what individual people can be like. In sum, I'm unsure as to how much I should weigh my very limited first-hand interactions with the people at each firm.

Different poster.

Nationally, Kirkland and Latham are peers in litigation. But in New York, they're fungible, with a slight edge to Kirkland in both WC and civil lit. Kirkland NY has a former EDNY US Attorney, Kirkland on the whole gets more of the national-headline-making cases (e.g., DOJ v. Apple recently), and has a robust underbelly of high-6/7-figure litigation constantly churning out of their PE clients' portfolio companies. That's not to knock Latham, they certainly have their share of headline-making cases and a robust practice overall.

But most of Kirkland's best litigators are in DC or Chicago. To my knowledge, Kirkland has an anemic litigation practice in New York in comparison to their main litigation offices. Latham's litigation focus is in other cities, too. Their appellate stars are in DC, and their center of gravity is in LA/SF.

Which is to say, go with the people you click better with. I think you got a good read of the two NY offices from your interviews. Do second looks, talk to more people, get your feet in the door and made a gut decision. There's not enough daylight--if any--between these firms' NY offices in terms of prestige/work assignment systems/national reputation to make the difference. If anything, something like a backdoor Roth (if you're focused on personal finances) or Kirkland's free cafe & cafeteria (for day-to-day) is a justifiable reason to take one over the other.

[Anonymous User]

Peer firms, maybe with a slight edge to Kirkland. Conventional wisdom is that Latham is a nicer place to work, but you may make more money at Kirkland.

[beforeithaka]

Peer firms, maybe with a slight edge to Kirkland. Conventional wisdom is that Latham is a nicer place to work, but you may make more money at Kirkland.

Slight edge in what sense? And make more money because they pay above-market bonuses? Have heard that but not sure how big a difference that will really be (especially accounting for any potential differences in the average billable at each)?

[beforeithaka]

(Previous anon here)

Of the two, it does seem like, at a general level, K&E is more well-known (and perhaps a little more well-regarded) for litigation, while Latham seems a bit more transactional heavy (but not quite as one-sided as a place like Simpson or Weil). Is this an accurate impression of the market perceptions? What do you mean by it's an interesting and potentially rewarding dynamic to join?

Caveat that I'm less familiar with NYC, but IMO I don't think there's enough of a difference here to make that a big deciding factor. Both are good at litigation and both are well known firms. For general lit, I don't think you're going to get materially better matters or work with materially better associates at one or the other.

What do you mean by it's an interesting and potentially rewarding dynamic to join?

To me, I was interested in the following: more opportunities both substantively and for partnership, prioritization at the management level/for firm politics, lots of laterals coming in with diverse perspectives. But these things can also be cast in a bad light: lots of work/understaffing, pressure to succeed/lass clout if the growth slows, culture clashes with non-homegrown folks.

Honestly, benefits seem roughly on par to me, apart from what the poster above mentioned, so I'm not really sure how to distinguish the two based on that.

Don't underestimate the power MBDR. You can save tens of thousands more each year with tax-free growth. If you plan to exit to government these will be your biggest savings years, and it's super useful to have those savings in a tax favored account.

What questions should I be asking at this point of these two options?

Culture. Think about it - you're going to be spending A LOT of time working over the next few years.
The culture can make or break that experience, and potentially cut short what would have otherwise been a good (or just lucrative) experience. There's a lot on the culture at both of these firms online. I won't rehash that here, but based on my experiences with both of them Latham seems to be a much better place to be.

First of all, just wanted to say thank you for your advice on this!

I was wondering if you could speak to the assignment system at each. The appeal of the free market system seems to be that, if you are the type of person who tends to succeed at a place like K&E (open assignment suits you), you could get more substantive experience early on. I'm not sure if this is true at a place at Latham, which has a staffer and seems much more structured overall. How did you look for early substantive experience in a firm?

Another worry I have is whether the unassigned system (for 1.5 years) at Latham means that you're not getting as focused/specialized training even compared to someone who's doing general litigation at another firm. If you're working on a gov investigation here, a M&A, transactional case there, a breach of contract case, then after 1.5 years deciding to do litigation, then are you worse off than an associate at another firm that's been doing litigation that whole time?

On culture: I did notice from speaking with partners and associates at both firms that, (1) they were all nice enough, (2) the K&E people tended to be a little more serious/no non-sense/intense, and while one or two of the Latham folks were like this too, others were more personable and casual. In my post-interview interactions with more lawyers, I was impressed with people from both places. But while I felt like I wanted to work with some of the K&E associates (who seemed just really driven and focused), I felt like I wanted to get to know one or two of the Latham associates, on a personal level, more. I know that firms generally send out their most personable people for interviews, so I'm not sure to what extent I can draw meaningful conclusions from my interview experiences. And I also know that people might leave and I might not work with these people that I liked from my interviews. Also, these are offices of 800/900 people in NY, so I've no doubt that I'll meet people I like and don't like at each, and it seems hard to justify extrapolating from the small sample size to assign to each firm a "personality." Then again, maybe culture is a separate thing from what individual people can be like. In sum, I'm unsure as to how much I should weigh my very limited first-hand interactions with the people at each firm.

Different poster.

Nationally, Kirkland and Latham are peers in litigation. But in New York, they're fungible, with a slight edge to Kirkland in both WC and civil lit. Kirkland NY has a former EDNY US Attorney, Kirkland on the whole gets more of the national-headline-making cases (e.g., DOJ v. Apple recently), and has a robust underbelly of high-6/7-figure litigation constantly churning out of their PE clients' portfolio companies. That's not to knock Latham, they certainly have their share of headline-making cases and a robust practice overall.

But most of Kirkland's best litigators are in DC or Chicago. To my knowledge, Kirkland has an anemic litigation practice in New York in comparison to their main litigation offices. Latham's litigation focus is in other cities, too. Their appellate stars are in DC, and their center of gravity is in LA/SF.

Which is to say, go with the people you click better with. I think you got a good read of the two NY offices from your interviews. Do second looks, talk to more people, get your feet in the door and made a gut decision. There's not enough daylight--if any--between these firms' NY offices in terms of prestige/work assignment systems/national reputation to make the difference. If anything, something like a backdoor Roth (if you're focused on personal finances) or Kirkland's free cafe & cafeteria (for day-to-day) is a justifiable reason to take one over the other.

Thank you for your input!

As a general matter, how much should I factor in the presence of any star or well-known litigators on the roster of each firm that I'm looking at? I was aware that the former Acting USA-EDNY is at K&E, but it's not clear to me that my day-to-day as a junior associate will entail much interaction/work with her, or how much her being there will be a value-add as to my experience. And I'm not sure I could bank on getting to work with her at litigation team of that size. I guess the value would be in any value to the reputation of the place?

A related question is: you speak of more headline-grabbing cases at K&E––will that affect my bottom-line in any case in terms of the likelihood of my success in landing a clerkship (I know other factors matter much more, but does firm name matter) or at the US Attorney's office? Basically, it seems like it's one thing to be at the firm of the two that has a stronger perceived litigation practice, but it's not clear to me to what extent will likely translate into differences in my tangible/practical outcomes for exit opportunities down the road. Will it make a difference for clerking/USAO/lateraling to a litigation boutique whether I start at K&E NY/Latham NY?

Also, I'm surprised that you don't distinguish between the work assignment systems between the two places? It seems like K&E's free market might actually lead to potentially more substantive experience early on. I spoke with second-years who have already done what seems to be pretty substantive work (depos, trial experience though not arguing of course). Do you think this is not a compelling thing to consider? Or do you basically think that it doesn't matter at the end of the day for an associate? Can you say more about this?