Kirkland v. Debevoise vs. Latham (all NY) Forum

[JiveTurkey]

Really interested in all three firms. I'm most interested in funds/banking, possibly into restructuring. This has really led me to put Kirkland to the top of the list.

This forum is all over Kirkland as being a bad place to work / as having rude attorneys. Anyone care to share their thoughts?

I really like the idea of the free market system - being able to choose who you work for and what types of deals you work on. That is appealing to me.

On the other hand, I am more into being friends and teammates with my coworkers than I am being a competitor. Is Kirkland really that "sink or swim", to the point where you feel like you need to compete with your fellow associates?

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks y'all

[Anonymous User]

Firms are not different. It all depends which partners you work for. You can go to a firm that is regarded as a great work life balance and positive place for associates, but you get matched up with the bad partner at the firm, you will be miserable. Vice versa, you can go to Kirkland, which gets a bad rep here for some reason, and you can find great partners who are helpful and supportive and have a great experience.

[Anonymous User]

Really interested in all three firms. I'm most interested in funds/banking, possibly into restructuring. This has really led me to put Kirkland to the top of the list.

This forum is all over Kirkland as being a bad place to work / as having rude attorneys. Anyone care to share their thoughts?

I really like the idea of the free market system - being able to choose who you work for and what types of deals you work on. That is appealing to me.

On the other hand, I am more into being friends and teammates with my coworkers than I am being a competitor. Is Kirkland really that "sink or swim", to the point where you feel like you need to compete with your fellow associates?

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks y'all

As someone who has worked at one of these firms in one of those practice areas, they are all very good. Latham is pretty obviously a step behind the others in funds work and Kirkland is in a league of its own for bankruptcy work. Latham is probably a step above the others for banking work. That being said, these are all pretty rough practice areas without the best exit options. I would be careful about picking one of these groups.

[JiveTurkey]

Really interested in all three firms. I'm most interested in funds/banking, possibly into restructuring. This has really led me to put Kirkland to the top of the list.

This forum is all over Kirkland as being a bad place to work / as having rude attorneys. Anyone care to share their thoughts?

I really like the idea of the free market system - being able to choose who you work for and what types of deals you work on. That is appealing to me.

On the other hand, I am more into being friends and teammates with my coworkers than I am being a competitor. Is Kirkland really that "sink or swim", to the point where you feel like you need to compete with your fellow associates?

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks y'all

As someone who has worked at one of these firms in one of those practice areas, they are all very good. Latham is pretty obviously a step behind the others in funds work and Kirkland is in a league of its own for bankruptcy work. Latham is probably a step above the others for banking work. That being said, these are all pretty rough practice areas without the best exit options. I would be careful about picking one of these groups.

Can you elaborate on the exit ops in funds? And where might they be the best, M&A?

I was thinking a good spot to land would be one of those middle market funds that K&E seems to do most of their work with. Not sure if that’s a bad idea.

[Anonymous User]

Where's Weil for you? Should be a consideration if you're into RX. At least for general corporate work over Deb.

[JiveTurkey]

Where's Weil for you? Should be a consideration if you're into RX. At least for general corporate work over Deb.

It’s up there, I just haven’t really been recruited by them at all but we’ll see soon.

[Anonymous User]

Where's Weil for you? Should be a consideration if you're into RX. At least for general corporate work over Deb.

It’s up there, I just haven’t really been recruited by them at all but we’ll see soon.

Culture of Weil's banking group is really solid. Latham is probably the stronger outfit but I can attest to how great all of Weil's banking lawyers are.

[Anonymous User]

Really interested in all three firms. I'm most interested in funds/banking, possibly into restructuring. This has really led me to put Kirkland to the top of the list.

This forum is all over Kirkland as being a bad place to work / as having rude attorneys. Anyone care to share their thoughts?

I really like the idea of the free market system - being able to choose who you work for and what types of deals you work on. That is appealing to me.

On the other hand, I am more into being friends and teammates with my coworkers than I am being a competitor. Is Kirkland really that "sink or swim", to the point where you feel like you need to compete with your fellow associates?

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks y'all

As someone who has worked at one of these firms in one of those practice areas, they are all very good. Latham is pretty obviously a step behind the others in funds work and Kirkland is in a league of its own for bankruptcy work. Latham is probably a step above the others for banking work. That being said, these are all pretty rough practice areas without the best exit options. I would be careful about picking one of these groups.

Can you elaborate on the exit ops in funds? And where might they be the best, M&A?

I was thinking a good spot to land would be one of those middle market funds that K&E seems to do most of their work with. Not sure if that’s a bad idea.

I'm not a funds lawyer, but have friends who are, the exit opps for funds work are some sponsors who have enough funds to support a funds lawyer and banks. They are high paying jobs (for the most part), but also tend not to be super chill lifestyle jobs. In the current market I think it's probably easier, but I have a close friend as a funds lawyer (at a good firm) who was desperate to get out for a couple of years and can't find anything.

M&A is definitely the best exit opps with capital markets probably being second. Tons of companies want people with M&A experience. I would say the opportunities for M&A associates are multiples of that for funds/bankruptcy/banking lawyers and there is a much greater dispersion of the types of opportunities. I honestly don't think the hours are any worse for M&A then what funds/banking/bankruptcy lawyers are doing at the firms you mention.

[JiveTurkey]

Where's Weil for you? Should be a consideration if you're into RX. At least for general corporate work over Deb.

It’s up there, I just haven’t really been recruited by them at all but we’ll see soon.

Culture of Weil's banking group is really solid. Latham is probably the stronger outfit but I can attest to how great all of Weil's banking lawyers are.

Thank you! I’ve had the chance to speak with a few banking associates at Weil and I’ve found that. glad to hear it carries over

[JiveTurkey]

Really interested in all three firms. I'm most interested in funds/banking, possibly into restructuring. This has really led me to put Kirkland to the top of the list.

This forum is all over Kirkland as being a bad place to work / as having rude attorneys. Anyone care to share their thoughts?

I really like the idea of the free market system - being able to choose who you work for and what types of deals you work on. That is appealing to me.

On the other hand, I am more into being friends and teammates with my coworkers than I am being a competitor. Is Kirkland really that "sink or swim", to the point where you feel like you need to compete with your fellow associates?

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks y'all

As someone who has worked at one of these firms in one of those practice areas, they are all very good. Latham is pretty obviously a step behind the others in funds work and Kirkland is in a league of its own for bankruptcy work. Latham is probably a step above the others for banking work. That being said, these are all pretty rough practice areas without the best exit options. I would be careful about picking one of these groups.

Can you elaborate on the exit ops in funds? And where might they be the best, M&A?

I was thinking a good spot to land would be one of those middle market funds that K&E seems to do most of their work with. Not sure if that’s a bad idea.

I'm not a funds lawyer, but have friends who are, the exit opps for funds work are some sponsors who have enough funds to support a funds lawyer and banks. They are high paying jobs (for the most part), but also tend not to be super chill lifestyle jobs. In the current market I think it's probably easier, but I have a close friend as a funds lawyer (at a good firm) who was desperate to get out for a couple of years and can't find anything.

M&A is definitely the best exit opps with capital markets probably being second. Tons of companies want people with M&A experience. I would say the opportunities for M&A associates are multiples of that for funds/bankruptcy/banking lawyers and there is a much greater dispersion of the types of opportunities. I honestly don't think the hours are any worse for M&A then what funds/banking/bankruptcy lawyers are doing at the firms you mention.

If we’re talking M&A, do the answers change at all? Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t all of these firms more or less equals in M&A?

I was initially really interested in M&A but the horror stories scared me away

Also appreciate all of you for chipping in here

[Anonymous User]

Funds -> Deb or Kirkland (my vote is Deb because Kirkland is a sweatshop)

RX -> KE (or apply elsewhere)

General Corporate -> All three are probably equal, go with fit (Again would go Latham or Deb here)

All three are top NYC shops, so you should really focus on practice group strengths and fit. Congrats on the great options!

[Anonymous User]

For general corporate, Debevoise is definitely a step below Latham and Kirkland. Kirkland probably takes the edge for M&A due to their PE ties but Latham is in the mix for top Capital Markets practices.

[JiveTurkey]

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate the insight. I’m pretty torn because I don’t really know specifically what I want to do yet.

If anyone has thoughts on culture, I’d love to hear em!

[Sackboy]

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate the insight. I’m pretty torn because I don’t really know specifically what I want to do yet.

If anyone has thoughts on culture, I’d love to hear em!

Culture is a lie. These places are all filled with the same types of people with the same pedigrees. The "culture" you experience will be completely dependent on what partners you work under. Don't worry, they'll all send you branded patagonias (or whatever).

[JiveTurkey]

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate the insight. I’m pretty torn because I don’t really know specifically what I want to do yet.

If anyone has thoughts on culture, I’d love to hear em!

Culture is a lie. These places are all filled with the same types of people with the same pedigrees. The "culture" you experience will be completely dependent on what partners you work under. Don't worry, they'll all send you branded patagonias (or whatever).

so what you’re saying is work at a place either with a) the least number of partners who suck or b) a place like k&e where you can decide who to work with more often?

[Anonymous User]

Really interested in all three firms. I'm most interested in funds/banking, possibly into restructuring. This has really led me to put Kirkland to the top of the list.

This forum is all over Kirkland as being a bad place to work / as having rude attorneys. Anyone care to share their thoughts?

I really like the idea of the free market system - being able to choose who you work for and what types of deals you work on. That is appealing to me.

On the other hand, I am more into being friends and teammates with my coworkers than I am being a competitor. Is Kirkland really that "sink or swim", to the point where you feel like you need to compete with your fellow associates?

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks y'all

Everyone at KE has a different experience. If you are lucky enough to hit the ground running, get on a good team and/or find a mentor then thriving at KE is possible. For some, it's a good choice. But, it is a very, very competitive environment, especially in smaller groups that have less steady workflows by definition.

KE overhires in their associate classes which will not always be apparent to summers or law students but is apparent in the industry generally. KE has a lot of work, but the safest paths are litigation (though the personalities are so-so) or M&A (where the workload may be most intense). This staffing glut becomes apparent when you join and lends to the atmosphere of competition.

Think hard about the type of person you are, i.e., are you willing to go out of your way to ingratiate yourself w/ a superior and out-compete your fellow associates for work? It is a sink or swim environment pure and simple. It's all CBA about whether you can thrive in that environment.

Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate the insight. I’m pretty torn because I don’t really know specifically what I want to do yet.

If anyone has thoughts on culture, I’d love to hear em!

Culture is a lie. These places are all filled with the same types of people with the same pedigrees. The "culture" you experience will be completely dependent on what partners you work under. Don't worry, they'll all send you branded patagonias (or whatever).

I think this is way too jaded of a response. Cultural differences certainly exist at all of these firms. Kirkland inherently attracts very competitive people who are even willing to compete with their classmates to one up each other. This competitiveness comes across when working across from them. Very bro-culture as well within some circles.

Have not worked across from Debevoise but most people I know who have ended up their are fairly nice. Although they are notorious for having a bit of a passive aggressive and formal streak.

Latham attracts the same kind of people as Kirkland and Skadden, but a little more tamed down. Known for being as laid back as a V10 law firm can be, but you certainly will still be working a ton (although probably less than the DPW associates chained to their desks ).

[Buglaw]

Really interested in all three firms. I'm most interested in funds/banking, possibly into restructuring. This has really led me to put Kirkland to the top of the list.

This forum is all over Kirkland as being a bad place to work / as having rude attorneys. Anyone care to share their thoughts?

I really like the idea of the free market system - being able to choose who you work for and what types of deals you work on. That is appealing to me.

On the other hand, I am more into being friends and teammates with my coworkers than I am being a competitor. Is Kirkland really that "sink or swim", to the point where you feel like you need to compete with your fellow associates?

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks y'all

As someone who has worked at one of these firms in one of those practice areas, they are all very good. Latham is pretty obviously a step behind the others in funds work and Kirkland is in a league of its own for bankruptcy work. Latham is probably a step above the others for banking work. That being said, these are all pretty rough practice areas without the best exit options. I would be careful about picking one of these groups.

Can you elaborate on the exit ops in funds? And where might they be the best, M&A?

I was thinking a good spot to land would be one of those middle market funds that K&E seems to do most of their work with. Not sure if that’s a bad idea.

I'm not a funds lawyer, but have friends who are, the exit opps for funds work are some sponsors who have enough funds to support a funds lawyer and banks. They are high paying jobs (for the most part), but also tend not to be super chill lifestyle jobs. In the current market I think it's probably easier, but I have a close friend as a funds lawyer (at a good firm) who was desperate to get out for a couple of years and can't find anything.

M&A is definitely the best exit opps with capital markets probably being second. Tons of companies want people with M&A experience. I would say the opportunities for M&A associates are multiples of that for funds/bankruptcy/banking lawyers and there is a much greater dispersion of the types of opportunities. I honestly don't think the hours are any worse for M&A then what funds/banking/bankruptcy lawyers are doing at the firms you mention.

If we’re talking M&A, do the answers change at all? Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t all of these firms more or less equals in M&A?

I was initially really interested in M&A but the horror stories scared me away

Also appreciate all of you for chipping in here

They are all very good M&A firms. No bad choice there. Go with whoever you liked best in intervoews.

The horror stories about M&A are true, but I honestly don't think it'd worse (or at least much worse) than the other practices. Talk to some banking lawyers about the awfulness that is commitment papers followed by large international credit facilities, or bankruptcy lawyers about large debtor or even creditor side cases, or funds lawyers at Deb and KE who are billing north of 2500 this year. I think its very rough in any of those practice groups, so I would be very hesitant to pick one of those for lifestyle reasons. If you like that work better, by all means choose one of those groups. You need to work there long enough to get to an exit and hating the work you do for 70 hours a week is not a recipe to make it that long.

[JiveTurkey]

Really interested in all three firms. I'm most interested in funds/banking, possibly into restructuring. This has really led me to put Kirkland to the top of the list.

This forum is all over Kirkland as being a bad place to work / as having rude attorneys. Anyone care to share their thoughts?

I really like the idea of the free market system - being able to choose who you work for and what types of deals you work on. That is appealing to me.

On the other hand, I am more into being friends and teammates with my coworkers than I am being a competitor. Is Kirkland really that "sink or swim", to the point where you feel like you need to compete with your fellow associates?

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks y'all

As someone who has worked at one of these firms in one of those practice areas, they are all very good. Latham is pretty obviously a step behind the others in funds work and Kirkland is in a league of its own for bankruptcy work. Latham is probably a step above the others for banking work. That being said, these are all pretty rough practice areas without the best exit options. I would be careful about picking one of these groups.

Can you elaborate on the exit ops in funds? And where might they be the best, M&A?

I was thinking a good spot to land would be one of those middle market funds that K&E seems to do most of their work with. Not sure if that’s a bad idea.

I'm not a funds lawyer, but have friends who are, the exit opps for funds work are some sponsors who have enough funds to support a funds lawyer and banks. They are high paying jobs (for the most part), but also tend not to be super chill lifestyle jobs. In the current market I think it's probably easier, but I have a close friend as a funds lawyer (at a good firm) who was desperate to get out for a couple of years and can't find anything.

M&A is definitely the best exit opps with capital markets probably being second. Tons of companies want people with M&A experience. I would say the opportunities for M&A associates are multiples of that for funds/bankruptcy/banking lawyers and there is a much greater dispersion of the types of opportunities. I honestly don't think the hours are any worse for M&A then what funds/banking/bankruptcy lawyers are doing at the firms you mention.

If we’re talking M&A, do the answers change at all? Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t all of these firms more or less equals in M&A?

I was initially really interested in M&A but the horror stories scared me away

Also appreciate all of you for chipping in here

They are all very good M&A firms. No bad choice there. Go with whoever you liked best in intervoews.

The horror stories about M&A are true, but I honestly don't think it'd worse (or at least much worse) than the other practices. Talk to some banking lawyers about the awfulness that is commitment papers followed by large international credit facilities, or bankruptcy lawyers about large debtor or even creditor side cases, or funds lawyers at Deb and KE who are billing north of 2500 this year. I think its very rough in any of those practice groups, so I would be very hesitant to pick one of those for lifestyle reasons. If you like that work better, by all means choose one of those groups. You need to work there long enough to get to an exit and hating the work you do for 70 hours a week is not a recipe to make it that long.

Thank you for the insight.

It’s tough, because I’m really not interested in litigation but it seems that the litigation side is much better for lifestyle. Are there any transactional practices that aren’t just sweatshoppy? I don’t mind 60-70 hour work weeks, but 80-90 consistently would brutal and (un)predictability is what scared me away from M&A in the first place

[Anonymous User]

Really interested in all three firms. I'm most interested in funds/banking, possibly into restructuring. This has really led me to put Kirkland to the top of the list.

This forum is all over Kirkland as being a bad place to work / as having rude attorneys. Anyone care to share their thoughts?

I really like the idea of the free market system - being able to choose who you work for and what types of deals you work on. That is appealing to me.

On the other hand, I am more into being friends and teammates with my coworkers than I am being a competitor. Is Kirkland really that "sink or swim", to the point where you feel like you need to compete with your fellow associates?

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks y'all

As someone who has worked at one of these firms in one of those practice areas, they are all very good. Latham is pretty obviously a step behind the others in funds work and Kirkland is in a league of its own for bankruptcy work. Latham is probably a step above the others for banking work. That being said, these are all pretty rough practice areas without the best exit options. I would be careful about picking one of these groups.

A little bit about exit opps from my experience (mid-level at one of these firms). M&A has the best exit opps for junior associates. You can go in-house as a 2nd/3rd year M&A associate, which is difficult for finance/funds attorneys.

However, the exit opportunities for 4th-6th years are strong for finance/funds associates so long as you're willing to work for banks/PE shops/Credit funds (ie if you plan on being in NY long-term and plan on staying at a firm for ~5 years, exit opps aren't really an issue). Funds is actually one of the best kept secrets for in house opportunities. I've seen funds associates get $400k in house comp at top PE shops and they work 9-7ish. That is an incredible in house outcome that I haven't seen for M&A/cap mkts associates. I've also seen finance associates go into PE/credit funds that allow them to contribute to the co-invest family and friends vehicles, and they make an absolute killing if that fund performs well. FWIW, I think it's also easier to stick around for 5 years as a funds/finance associate vs. m&a/capital mkts assoicate.

I'll also say that we're talking in generalities - if you can market yourself, you can market yourself. For example, I've done a good bit of M&A work, but that is not my practice area. Nonetheless, I keep all my M&A deals on my deal sheet in a separate header. I know recruiter's eyes will immediately go to that $10bn acquisition for "household name", even though that literally means nothing.

With regards to culture, they are not the same despite what jaded people will tell you here. Debevoise is definitely stuffier and old-timelier than LW/KE. That being said, it really doesn't matter.

First, your culture will primarily be dictated by your practice group leaders. Even if you choose a firm because you liked the culture, there's no guarantee that culture is what you'll get. For example, my group does not care whether we WFH or not. This was true pre-pandemic too. That has made it extremely easy for me to stick around. If I was in the office everyday until midnight, I honestly would not still be here. You could be at a "laid-back firm", but if your partners expect you to be in office, you'll be in office regardless of the overall firm policy.

Second, culture changes over time. The culture I came in at is extremely different than the culture today (I came in when firms were still doing work hard/play hard fratty culture vs. the soulcycle/instagram feel that they've all shifted to). Culture changes pretty quickly too with addition of laterals, friends leaving, new leadership etc.

Third, as long as the culture isn't so bad that you'll want to quit in a year, it doesn't matter. All 3 of these firms have generally nice people and you won't run into screamers/ppl that want to actively make your life miserable.

EDIT: Also, just saw your post about hours and sweatshopiness. 80-90 billable hours/week is not common at all. I've seen the numbers across the groups and offices at my firm, and 50-65 billable hours/week is much more common. Of course, 50-60 billable hours probably translates to about 70-80 hours of work, but total numbers isn't usually what drives burnout. What drives burnout in my opinion is unpredictability of work and a lot of late night/weekend work. If you told me I would consistently work 8am-8pm every weekday, and 9am-12pm every saturday and sunday. I would bill 3000 hours for the year and have no burnout issues.

Finance/funds/specialty practices tend to be more predictable than M&A/cap mkts (yes, you will get papers dumped on you on a Friday afternoon in finance, but you also know to expect that).

[Anonymous User]

Really interested in all three firms. I'm most interested in funds/banking, possibly into restructuring. This has really led me to put Kirkland to the top of the list.

This forum is all over Kirkland as being a bad place to work / as having rude attorneys. Anyone care to share their thoughts?

I really like the idea of the free market system - being able to choose who you work for and what types of deals you work on. That is appealing to me.

On the other hand, I am more into being friends and teammates with my coworkers than I am being a competitor. Is Kirkland really that "sink or swim", to the point where you feel like you need to compete with your fellow associates?

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks y'all

As someone who has worked at one of these firms in one of those practice areas, they are all very good. Latham is pretty obviously a step behind the others in funds work and Kirkland is in a league of its own for bankruptcy work. Latham is probably a step above the others for banking work. That being said, these are all pretty rough practice areas without the best exit options. I would be careful about picking one of these groups.

A little bit about exit opps from my experience (mid-level at one of these firms). M&A has the best exit opps for junior associates. You can go in-house as a 2nd/3rd year M&A associate, which is difficult for finance/funds attorneys.

However, the exit opportunities for 4th-6th years are strong for finance/funds associates so long as you're willing to work for banks/PE shops/Credit funds (ie if you plan on being in NY long-term and plan on staying at a firm for ~5 years, exit opps aren't really an issue). Funds is actually one of the best kept secrets for in house opportunities. I've seen funds associates get $400k in house comp at top PE shops and they work 9-7ish. That is an incredible in house outcome that I haven't seen for M&A/cap mkts associates. I've also seen finance associates go into PE/credit funds that allow them to contribute to the co-invest family and friends vehicles, and they make an absolute killing if that fund performs well. FWIW, I think it's also easier to stick around for 5 years as a funds/finance associate vs. m&a/capital mkts assoicate.

I'll also say that we're talking in generalities - if you can market yourself, you can market yourself. For example, I've done a good bit of M&A work, but that is not my practice area. Nonetheless, I keep all my M&A deals on my deal sheet in a separate header. I know recruiter's eyes will immediately go to that $10bn acquisition for "household name", even though that literally means nothing.

With regards to culture, they are not the same despite what jaded people will tell you here. Debevoise is definitely stuffier and old-timelier than LW/KE. That being said, it really doesn't matter.

First, your culture will primarily be dictated by your practice group leaders. Even if you choose a firm because you liked the culture, there's no guarantee that culture is what you'll get. For example, my group does not care whether we WFH or not. This was true pre-pandemic too. That has made it extremely easy for me to stick around. If I was in the office everyday until midnight, I honestly would not still be here. You could be at a "laid-back firm", but if your partners expect you to be in office, you'll be in office regardless of the overall firm policy.

Second, culture changes over time. The culture I came in at is extremely different than the culture today (I came in when firms were still doing work hard/play hard fratty culture vs. the soulcycle/instagram feel that they've all shifted to). Culture changes pretty quickly too with addition of laterals, friends leaving, new leadership etc.

Third, as long as the culture isn't so bad that you'll want to quit in a year, it doesn't matter. All 3 of these firms have generally nice people and you won't run into screamers/ppl that want to actively make your life miserable.

EDIT: Also, just saw your post about hours and sweatshopiness. 80-90 billable hours/week is not common at all. I've seen the numbers across the groups and offices at my firm, and 50-65 billable hours/week is much more common. Of course, 50-60 billable hours probably translates to about 70-80 hours of work, but total numbers isn't usually what drives burnout. What drives burnout in my opinion is unpredictability of work and a lot of late night/weekend work. If you told me I would consistently work 8am-8pm every weekday, and 9am-12pm every saturday and sunday. I would bill 3000 hours for the year and have no burnout issues.

Finance/funds/specialty practices tend to be more predictable than M&A/cap mkts (yes, you will get papers dumped on you on a Friday afternoon in finance, but you also know to expect that).

I generally disagree that the exits are just as good or as easy to get. I think you should talk with the banking teams. There are not a ton of banking exits and there are a ton of mid-level finance associates. Lots of the people there really struggle to find exits. The exits they do get can be OK. Some get high paying jobs at funds (but there aren't a ton of these). Antares is, I think, the largest debt fund and they have like 2-3 lending lawyers in-house so let's not pretend like there are gobs of opportunities for mid-level lending lawyers at funds. Banks don't pay that much for lending lawyers and there isn't a ton of upward mobility there.

On the funds side, I agree the in-house jobs are well paying (as noted above) but I don't agree they are super chill (at least from what I've seen).

I also think the reason people last longer in funds/banking/bankruptcy is there is nothing else they can do until they get more senior. I don't agree that Kirkland M&A, for example, is that much harder a lifestyle than Kirkland banking or funds or bankruptcy.

Also, obviously if you can market yourself it will be easier. But it will be even easier to market M&A work.

Also, if you could bill 60 hours a week and work 66, you would be the most efficient associate on the planet. 90% realization is kind of nuts. Hours definitely cause burnout. Working 70 hours a week is brutal regardless of when they occur.

Commitment papers and finance are not predictable. I also haven't heard too many people make that claim before.

[Anonymous User]

Really interested in all three firms. I'm most interested in funds/banking, possibly into restructuring. This has really led me to put Kirkland to the top of the list.

This forum is all over Kirkland as being a bad place to work / as having rude attorneys. Anyone care to share their thoughts?

I really like the idea of the free market system - being able to choose who you work for and what types of deals you work on. That is appealing to me.

On the other hand, I am more into being friends and teammates with my coworkers than I am being a competitor. Is Kirkland really that "sink or swim", to the point where you feel like you need to compete with your fellow associates?

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks y'all

As someone who has worked at one of these firms in one of those practice areas, they are all very good. Latham is pretty obviously a step behind the others in funds work and Kirkland is in a league of its own for bankruptcy work. Latham is probably a step above the others for banking work. That being said, these are all pretty rough practice areas without the best exit options. I would be careful about picking one of these groups.

A little bit about exit opps from my experience (mid-level at one of these firms). M&A has the best exit opps for junior associates. You can go in-house as a 2nd/3rd year M&A associate, which is difficult for finance/funds attorneys.

However, the exit opportunities for 4th-6th years are strong for finance/funds associates so long as you're willing to work for banks/PE shops/Credit funds (ie if you plan on being in NY long-term and plan on staying at a firm for ~5 years, exit opps aren't really an issue). Funds is actually one of the best kept secrets for in house opportunities. I've seen funds associates get $400k in house comp at top PE shops and they work 9-7ish. That is an incredible in house outcome that I haven't seen for M&A/cap mkts associates. I've also seen finance associates go into PE/credit funds that allow them to contribute to the co-invest family and friends vehicles, and they make an absolute killing if that fund performs well. FWIW, I think it's also easier to stick around for 5 years as a funds/finance associate vs. m&a/capital mkts assoicate.

I'll also say that we're talking in generalities - if you can market yourself, you can market yourself. For example, I've done a good bit of M&A work, but that is not my practice area. Nonetheless, I keep all my M&A deals on my deal sheet in a separate header. I know recruiter's eyes will immediately go to that $10bn acquisition for "household name", even though that literally means nothing.

With regards to culture, they are not the same despite what jaded people will tell you here. Debevoise is definitely stuffier and old-timelier than LW/KE. That being said, it really doesn't matter.

First, your culture will primarily be dictated by your practice group leaders. Even if you choose a firm because you liked the culture, there's no guarantee that culture is what you'll get. For example, my group does not care whether we WFH or not. This was true pre-pandemic too. That has made it extremely easy for me to stick around. If I was in the office everyday until midnight, I honestly would not still be here. You could be at a "laid-back firm", but if your partners expect you to be in office, you'll be in office regardless of the overall firm policy.

Second, culture changes over time. The culture I came in at is extremely different than the culture today (I came in when firms were still doing work hard/play hard fratty culture vs. the soulcycle/instagram feel that they've all shifted to). Culture changes pretty quickly too with addition of laterals, friends leaving, new leadership etc.

Third, as long as the culture isn't so bad that you'll want to quit in a year, it doesn't matter. All 3 of these firms have generally nice people and you won't run into screamers/ppl that want to actively make your life miserable.

EDIT: Also, just saw your post about hours and sweatshopiness. 80-90 billable hours/week is not common at all. I've seen the numbers across the groups and offices at my firm, and 50-65 billable hours/week is much more common. Of course, 50-60 billable hours probably translates to about 70-80 hours of work, but total numbers isn't usually what drives burnout. What drives burnout in my opinion is unpredictability of work and a lot of late night/weekend work. If you told me I would consistently work 8am-8pm every weekday, and 9am-12pm every saturday and sunday. I would bill 3000 hours for the year and have no burnout issues.

Finance/funds/specialty practices tend to be more predictable than M&A/cap mkts (yes, you will get papers dumped on you on a Friday afternoon in finance, but you also know to expect that).

I generally disagree that the exits are just as good or as easy to get. I think you should talk with the banking teams. There are not a ton of banking exits and there are a ton of mid-level finance associates. Lots of the people there really struggle to find exits. The exits they do get can be OK. Some get high paying jobs at funds (but there aren't a ton of these). Antares is, I think, the largest debt fund and they have like 2-3 lending lawyers in-house so let's not pretend like there are gobs of opportunities for mid-level lending lawyers at funds. Banks don't pay that much for lending lawyers and there isn't a ton of upward mobility there.

On the funds side, I agree the in-house jobs are well paying (as noted above) but I don't agree they are super chill (at least from what I've seen).

I also think the reason people last longer in funds/banking/bankruptcy is there is nothing else they can do until they get more senior. I don't agree that Kirkland M&A, for example, is that much harder a lifestyle than Kirkland banking or funds or bankruptcy.

Also, obviously if you can market yourself it will be easier. But it will be even easier to market M&A work.

Banks don't pay that much for lending lawyers? MS, GS, BAML, etc. pay all-in comp of 250k+ with a better lifestyle than biglaw. I would consider those jobs easier to get than FAANG in house positions.

If we're comparing every opportunity under the sun that m&a/cap mkt associates have, I think you'd have to consider the in-house finance jobs that no one wants to do (bond rating agencies, insurance, compliance etc.) Those opportunities exist, but I don't know anyone that wants to them, which I guess is fair to say the opportunities are more limited. M&a/cap mkts associates will go to random startup/small comp because they might have an exciting product or may have good growth potential.

[JiveTurkey]

To the anon who said their group doesn’t mind WFH pre-pandemic: would you mind PM’ing me to share your thoughts on the one of these firms? I could really use some unfiltered thoughts on them.

thank you

[Anonymous User]

Really interested in all three firms. I'm most interested in funds/banking, possibly into restructuring. This has really led me to put Kirkland to the top of the list.

This forum is all over Kirkland as being a bad place to work / as having rude attorneys. Anyone care to share their thoughts?

I really like the idea of the free market system - being able to choose who you work for and what types of deals you work on. That is appealing to me.

On the other hand, I am more into being friends and teammates with my coworkers than I am being a competitor. Is Kirkland really that "sink or swim", to the point where you feel like you need to compete with your fellow associates?

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks y'all

As someone who has worked at one of these firms in one of those practice areas, they are all very good. Latham is pretty obviously a step behind the others in funds work and Kirkland is in a league of its own for bankruptcy work. Latham is probably a step above the others for banking work. That being said, these are all pretty rough practice areas without the best exit options. I would be careful about picking one of these groups.

A little bit about exit opps from my experience (mid-level at one of these firms). M&A has the best exit opps for junior associates. You can go in-house as a 2nd/3rd year M&A associate, which is difficult for finance/funds attorneys.

However, the exit opportunities for 4th-6th years are strong for finance/funds associates so long as you're willing to work for banks/PE shops/Credit funds (ie if you plan on being in NY long-term and plan on staying at a firm for ~5 years, exit opps aren't really an issue). Funds is actually one of the best kept secrets for in house opportunities. I've seen funds associates get $400k in house comp at top PE shops and they work 9-7ish. That is an incredible in house outcome that I haven't seen for M&A/cap mkts associates. I've also seen finance associates go into PE/credit funds that allow them to contribute to the co-invest family and friends vehicles, and they make an absolute killing if that fund performs well. FWIW, I think it's also easier to stick around for 5 years as a funds/finance associate vs. m&a/capital mkts assoicate.

I'll also say that we're talking in generalities - if you can market yourself, you can market yourself. For example, I've done a good bit of M&A work, but that is not my practice area. Nonetheless, I keep all my M&A deals on my deal sheet in a separate header. I know recruiter's eyes will immediately go to that $10bn acquisition for "household name", even though that literally means nothing.

With regards to culture, they are not the same despite what jaded people will tell you here. Debevoise is definitely stuffier and old-timelier than LW/KE. That being said, it really doesn't matter.

First, your culture will primarily be dictated by your practice group leaders. Even if you choose a firm because you liked the culture, there's no guarantee that culture is what you'll get. For example, my group does not care whether we WFH or not. This was true pre-pandemic too. That has made it extremely easy for me to stick around. If I was in the office everyday until midnight, I honestly would not still be here. You could be at a "laid-back firm", but if your partners expect you to be in office, you'll be in office regardless of the overall firm policy.

Second, culture changes over time. The culture I came in at is extremely different than the culture today (I came in when firms were still doing work hard/play hard fratty culture vs. the soulcycle/instagram feel that they've all shifted to). Culture changes pretty quickly too with addition of laterals, friends leaving, new leadership etc.

Third, as long as the culture isn't so bad that you'll want to quit in a year, it doesn't matter. All 3 of these firms have generally nice people and you won't run into screamers/ppl that want to actively make your life miserable.

EDIT: Also, just saw your post about hours and sweatshopiness. 80-90 billable hours/week is not common at all. I've seen the numbers across the groups and offices at my firm, and 50-65 billable hours/week is much more common. Of course, 50-60 billable hours probably translates to about 70-80 hours of work, but total numbers isn't usually what drives burnout. What drives burnout in my opinion is unpredictability of work and a lot of late night/weekend work. If you told me I would consistently work 8am-8pm every weekday, and 9am-12pm every saturday and sunday. I would bill 3000 hours for the year and have no burnout issues.

Finance/funds/specialty practices tend to be more predictable than M&A/cap mkts (yes, you will get papers dumped on you on a Friday afternoon in finance, but you also know to expect that).

I generally disagree that the exits are just as good or as easy to get. I think you should talk with the banking teams. There are not a ton of banking exits and there are a ton of mid-level finance associates. Lots of the people there really struggle to find exits. The exits they do get can be OK. Some get high paying jobs at funds (but there aren't a ton of these). Antares is, I think, the largest debt fund and they have like 2-3 lending lawyers in-house so let's not pretend like there are gobs of opportunities for mid-level lending lawyers at funds. Banks don't pay that much for lending lawyers and there isn't a ton of upward mobility there.

On the funds side, I agree the in-house jobs are well paying (as noted above) but I don't agree they are super chill (at least from what I've seen).

I also think the reason people last longer in funds/banking/bankruptcy is there is nothing else they can do until they get more senior. I don't agree that Kirkland M&A, for example, is that much harder a lifestyle than Kirkland banking or funds or bankruptcy.

Also, obviously if you can market yourself it will be easier. But it will be even easier to market M&A work.

Banks don't pay that much for lending lawyers? MS, GS, BAML, etc. pay all-in comp of 250k+ with a better lifestyle than biglaw. I would consider those jobs easier to get than FAANG in house positions.

If we're comparing every opportunity under the sun that m&a/cap mkt associates have, I think you'd have to consider the in-house finance jobs that no one wants to do (bond rating agencies, insurance, compliance etc.) Those opportunities exist, but I don't know anyone that wants to them, which I guess is fair to say the opportunities are more limited. M&a/cap mkts associates will go to random startup/small comp because they might have an exciting product or may have good growth potential.

Most lending lawyers I know who have gone in-house got less than 250k all in at banks. More like 180-200 base plus bonus if you are including matching 401k maybe you get to 250k. Debt funds pay more, but so do hedge funds, gc roles, office of the general counsel at fortune 500 companies, etc., that people from other practice groups get.

I don't know a corporate associate at these firms who went in-house for worse comp at the 5-8 year range unless they were doing something random. 250k+ all-in is a pretty common exit for M&A/CapM associates at elite firms. I just don't agree the banking exits are as good as the CapM and M&A associates. I have gotten a 300k all-in offers for a cap markets heavy position at a public company (non FAANG) and I don't even have real cap markets experience.

[Anonymous User]

To the anon who said their group doesn’t mind WFH pre-pandemic: would you mind PM’ing me to share your thoughts on the one of these firms? I could really use some unfiltered thoughts on them.

thank you

Just sent you a PM.