First!!!!

2 - I beat you. YES!

Layoffs at Simpson?

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/08/nationwide_layoff_simpson_thacher.php

Since we are talking about recruiting, did anyone see that website that was mentioned in the other threads about training for interviews and resumes specifically by practicing attorneys? I can't remember the name, but I'm thinking since I'm in the middle of my T14 it probably wouldn't hurt me.

IF you are going to work at one of these sweatshops, any reason not to work for K&E, what with their bonus policies and all?

Does anyone know what litigation at Cleary is like?

FWIW, I summered at Latham this year and couldn't have had a better experience - extraordinarily friendly people (on top of all the other stuff).

Can anyone compare Latham (Chicago) v. Kirkland (Chicago)? Thanks.

Chicago = TTT comments in 3...2...1...

Litigation at Cleary is very strong nowadays. The litigation department was not so strong in the 80s and early 90s, but since then the firm has recruited some of the best litigation talent around. The reason that this myth still lingers around is that other top firms cling to old history to smear Cleary during recruiting these days. Moreover, the fact that Cleary has a very interesting/international client base makes for some of the more interesting cases to work on (think sovereign litigation, international arbitration, etc).

9 - you're not going to find a lot of people with significant experience at both Latham and Kirkland. Generally, when people leave one of those places, it's not to go somewhere similar.

9 - Chicago isnt TTT. It simply isnt New York and yes you will feel inferior and be viewed as inferior to us New York lawyers.

9 - I interviewed at both and got callbacks (and offers) but didn't accept either. Here are my impressions.

Latham Chicago - I think that the associates don't pick a speciality for the first two years, they sort of rotate or take assignments from all departments. They seem to work a ton (one associate told me her hours and it seemed really high, but I forgot the number). Also it is known as an LA firm.

Kirkland Chicago - Better reputation as a firm and known for paying more money. Probably the best reputation of any Chicago firm among non-lawyers. I'm sure they work a ton too.

The people were really nice at both places.

10 is right. Cleary's litigation department has gotten a lot better. They now have superstar Lewis Liman -- former SCOTUS clerk and AUSA (SDNY), and son of the legendary Arthur Liman:

http://www.cgsh.com/lliman/

7 - Litigation at Cleary is a mixed bag - it is definitely not Cleary's forte, but they are definitely trying to expand the practice at the firm. there are a few great partners, but also some real assholes (as at any large firm). If you are a favored associate, you will be deluged with work and have next to no life at all (again, as at any big firm). should say i don't know too many associates 2nd year and above who arent contemplating, or actively seeking, to leave the firm in the next litle while. the idea cleary has successfully been able to promote to the rest of the world that it is a quirky, lifestyle firm, is just not true.

If you like litigation with a relatively heavy Latin American leaning to it, then I would pick it. Quite a lot of the associates speak spanish or can at least handle themselves ok. quite a bit of international arbitration going on at the moment as well if you like that sort of thing.

like any litigation practice at a big firm, chances are you will get stuck on a huge doc review at some point in your first couple of years.

I used to be a litigation para at S&C. If you like short, doughy, greasy attorneys, come to S&C.

13, without disclosing more information than you would like, why did you turn them down? Where did you end up? What did you see in the firm you chose that was missing from Latham and Kirkland?

Also, congratulations on getting offers at both. What were your grades like? That is, if you don't mind my asking.

Thanks again,
9

Skadden & Latham interview oncampus at Syracuse..

Don't listen to the Clearly litigation trolls. It plays second fiddle to the corporate group, as you should expect.

Weil New York?

At Cleary a lot of the work for the first couple years involves working on and managing large-scale document reviews, including quality controlling the contract attorneys first-level review, privilege review, and document pulls at the client's offices. More senior associates get more responsibility, but like most top law firms involved in litigation involving hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, they're not letting associates defend depositions and argue motions or examine witnesses on the stand.

15 = troll from other t10 firm trying to smear CGSH again. This is the oldest recruiting trick out there: if your department sucks and your people suck (or has nothing else to make itself stand out), just smear the place with friendlier people and more interesting work. CGSH's litigation is as good as any (if not better) of the other top shops.

Hello 9/17, this is 13.

I am pretty sure I had a 3.8 when I interviewed as a 1L, from a T14 school (I hate that term, but I don't want to give too much info).

I picked a different Chicago "BigLaw" firm, one that is lower on the Vault list.

There were lots of reasons that into my choice, but two main ones.

First, I was interested in a specialty practice area and the firm I chose is really good in that area. I was not at all interested in Latham's two-year rotation thing (which may have changed since I interviewed so check on that).

Second, I didn't want to work so many hours. It seemed to me that associates were expected to work more than 2000 hours, and that 2200 or even 2300 was not considered unusual. I didn't want to be the lowest billing associate by far. The firm I picked firmly said that 2000 is the goal and no more is expected, and that has turned out to be true.

I hope that helps!

If you're interested in truly top notch work in ligitation, IP, or bankruptcy - Kirkland is your best bet. But definitely do your research with respect to the offices. While you're going to work VERY hard at any of their offices, the environments can differ vastly.

Which of these firms is best in SF? in DC? for IP?

My view of the V6-10
Simpson - best for NY corporate, transactional
Latham - best overall corporate on the west coast, fun place to work, big bonuses
Cleary - best international, good character, good overall in NY
Weil - meh
Kirkland - best litigation, IP, best pay (2nd only to Wachtell) especially if you're outside NY since Kirkland seems to use the same generous bonus system across offices, so no special NY bonuses

22 - 15 here. i am a Cleary litigation associate and i am simply telling the truth - you can't honestly say that Cleary litigation (and Cleary generally), is the law firm equivalent of the land of milk and honey - it is like any other large corporate firm - long hours, some good colleagues, and some difficult colleagues.

apart from Cravath, and maybe Kirkland, the top ten firms really are firms that rely on their corporate departments and their litigation departments come second in terms of revenue raising importance etc. It is only once you get to the Vault 10-20, and you have firms like Paul Weiss and Williams and Connolly, that you really get to strong litigation firms.

Calling Latham's first two years a "rotation" is a misnomer. It's a rotation only if you want it to be. If you arrive knowing you want to do tax, then just do tax. If you know you want to do 100% litigation, then you can do 100% litigation. But if you are not sure yet, and want to try some things out, you have to years to try things without needing any department head's permission, or worrying about how supervisors will read your interest in other areas.

I love how naive people are when they say "X firm is really good because the people are really nice there." What the hell does that even mean - most of these Biglaw shops have hundreds of lawyers in each office and the ONLY thing any incoming associate should care about is whether the partner he/she will work with the most is "nice." That's it. Which is why it is absolutely irrelevant whether the people are nice at X firm or Y firm. Not to mention, it is impossible to reasonably generalize like that - each law firm and each office of each law firms are filled with d-bags and genuinely nice people...

Any comment on which of these places offers (1) highest partnership chances, (2) most early responsibility (i.e. not doing doc review for the first few years)?

6--
Kirkland's NY Corporate and Litigation practices, while top notch, are not quite at the level of some of the other big name firms in NY. So if you're going to NY and you really care about the level of the sophistication (for lack of a better term) of the work, you might choose a NY-based firm (e.g., Cleary, DPW, Paul Weiss) over Kirkland, even though Kirkland's bonuses are higher.

Incidentally, Kirkland knows this about its NY practice, which is precisely why it chooses to pay higher bonuses.

Just how big are Kirkland's bonuses? Are they really uniform across offices? How much do non-equity partners make? What % of associate make non-equity and what % of non-equity make equity?

About Latham's first two years program:

Attorneys are generally considered "unassigned" for their first two years, which means they can work on anything and for anyone. Typically associates will start out doing a wider variety of work and narrow it down as they go, ultimately picking a practice area after about two years. Having said that, however, you certainly can (and many do) chose a practice group earlier. For instance, if you know you want to do one particular thing, you can stick to just that (even as a summer). It's up to you what you want to do, but the option to try things out is open if you aren't quite sure yet.

Is Kirkland planning on boosting its NY practice? Considering how NY-centric Vault is, if Kirkland cared about boosting its Vault ranking, I'd imagine putting their NY corporate practice on par with the rest of the V10 would put them in the V5 since the are probably the best firm nationally outside NY (good argument for Latham though).

29: Up at the top end of Vault, partnership numbers are so far against you that there is probably no legitimate or realistic separation among the firms. If you want firms where you have a good shake at sticking around for partnership, you probably need to look significantly further down vault, or even outside of the AMLAW 50 range.

15 - 22 here. I also work in litigation at Cleary. Given your point at 26, I think we are in agreement more or less. I agree that there are shops out there in the t11-20 range with a stronger focus on litigation generally (though how does that really help a junior though how many cases your firm has in total?). However, if you're going to be a litigator AND you just have to be at one of the t10 shops (for the "prestige" or whatever), then you might as well go to our firm for the more varied type of work and interesting clientele.

28 = trying to justify working at a firm with not very nice people

ATL is great! I, an ignorant law student, can rely on anonymous comments from other ignorant law students for my future career moves.

Perhaps I should also use Yahoo Answers for my other important decisions.

13/23 here. Thanks for the Latham 2-year program clarifications. I had a feeling there was more to it.

I still wonder if young associates end up doing work in areas they don't want to work in? For example, can a first year associate interested in corporate could turn down a document review project for litigation, claiming that he or she only wants to do corporate? What if it is an emergency and they really need people just for a few weeks (which then turns into months). And if you can turn it down, do you end up making an enemy or being seen as not a team player? These were some of my concerns with the unassigned system.

28 = I can tell you that I've worked at a firm with God-like Partners (ahem, V2) and also at Latham. My day-to-day life is 100% more pleasant working with reasonable people.

For instance at V2 firm, I once had a medical emergency and was rushed to the emergency room. All the partner on the HY deal said to me was, "Get to the Printer as soon as you can." Not, "Are you OK?" I know that at the other firm (which is V10), the Partners would have restaffed the deal, because they are reasonable, nice people.

If you want to work with the equivalent of Lettermen's Clubbers who $hit on you because you are a freshman, go to a firm with "not nice people." If you want a firm where you ACTUALLY genuinely have colleagues that you would enjoy having a beer with, go to a firm that's known for nice people.

Lastly, as someone who's worked in biglaw for a while, know that very few firms trot our their biggest a-holes for recruiting. So when you hear "The people at X firm were so nice during recruiting," know that it's unlikely that you'd find differently. The recruiting attys and the trolls lurking in corner offices are different people.

28 = I can tell you that I've worked at a firm with God-like Partners (ahem, V2) and also at Latham. My day-to-day life is 100% more pleasant working with reasonable people.

For instance at V2 firm, I once had a medical emergency and was rushed to the emergency room. All the partner on the HY deal said to me was, "Get to the Printer as soon as you can." Not, "Are you OK?" I know that at the other firm (which is V10), the Partners would have restaffed the deal, because they are reasonable, nice people.

If you want to work with the equivalent of Lettermen's Clubbers who $hit on you because you are a freshman, go to a firm with "not nice people." If you want a firm where you ACTUALLY genuinely have colleagues that you would enjoy having a beer with, go to a firm that's known for nice people.

Lastly, as someone who's worked in biglaw for a while, know that very few firms trot our their biggest a-holes for recruiting. So when you hear "The people at X firm were so nice during recruiting," know that it's unlikely that you'd find differently. The recruiting attys and the trolls lurking in corner offices are different people.

28 = I can tell you that I've worked at a firm with God-like Partners (ahem, V2) and also at Latham. My day-to-day life is 100% more pleasant working with reasonable people.

For instance at V2 firm, I once had a medical emergency and was rushed to the emergency room. All the partner on the HY deal said to me was, "Get to the Printer as soon as you can." Not, "Are you OK?" I know that at the other firm (which is V10), the Partners would have restaffed the deal, because they are reasonable, nice people.

If you want to work with the equivalent of Lettermen's Clubbers who $hit on you because you are a freshman, go to a firm with "not nice people." If you want a firm where you ACTUALLY genuinely have colleagues that you would enjoy having a beer with, go to a firm that's known for nice people.

Lastly, as someone who's worked in biglaw for a while, know that very few firms trot our their biggest a-holes for recruiting. So when you hear "The people at X firm were so nice during recruiting," know that it's unlikely that you'd find differently. The recruiting attys and the trolls lurking in corner offices are different people.

sorry about the multiple posts, kids. Lots of error messages.

42 = fail.

Of these firms, Latham's probably the most attractive. Great lifestyle, flexible system, excellent quality of work especially in the west.

Plus they reputedly have the best looking lawyers.

37, you are so clueless.

ATL may be (nay, actually really, really, very depressingly is) overrun with students - not all of them of the law variety - but what happens is the few of us who are lawyers read and comment every once in a while. On a topic like this the recruiting person from each firm finds out about the posts and then, in a rather obvious effort, attempts to paint a flattering picture of work at their firm. Also, some drones, like meself, also write flattering profiles while on our work computers. So there are actually two sets of ignorent people on the board, those who pretend to be lawyers and those who pretend to be objective.

Back when I went through the OCI process, Cleary made me an offer. Considering I was interested in litigation, I spoke with a friend's father who is a litigation partner at a prominent, similarly-ranked NY law firm. When asked about Cleary, he said:

"Sure, you could go there...if you want to learn to litigate like an asshole."

I turned them down, and have since gone up against them in practice. Truer words were never spoken.

#30 - Sorry, but you're just wrong with respect to Kirkland's litigation practice. They have been rated the top litigation practice by the American Lawyer as well as Chambers and Partners for several years running. Additionally, it's litigation practice has been rated in the top 5 in Vault for several years running as well.

You are correct, however, with respect to the corporate department.

I find Chambers and AmLaw more helpful than Vault in determining which are the better litigation departments.

46 - you're a fool, of course a partner at another firm will have nothing good to say about their competitors.

47--
30 here. I specifically limited my comments to their NY litigation practice, and I speak from first hand experience, not from magazines. But if you want to cite rankings, then you should get your cites right. Chambers ranks Kirkland's NY commercial litigation practice in Band 3, tied with the likes of Fried Frank, Kaye Scholer, Proskauer Rose (all great firms), but behind 9 other (all NY based) firms. This is consistent I believe with my comment that their litigation group, while "top notch", is "not quite at the level of some of the other big name firms in NY."

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/usa/resultseditorial.aspx?cid=392&pid=70&solbar=1&grouptype=2

47 may be right, but Cleary and K & E do have something in common - - see 46 - - If K & E's NY litigation practice is anything like the LA litigation practice, then go there...if you truly "want to learn to litigate like an asshole." And I'll add: and like fcking lying, two-faced, scheming bunch of pricks. (including the women).

Blogs like this one seem to be swamped with those who have an agenda and/or law students who have little actual knowledge of law firms. However, during my experience as an associate at a top 10 firm I have found that the best information on firms out there still is the vault guide, as flawed as it is.

Blogs like this one seem to be swamped with those who have an agenda and/or law students who have little actual knowledge of law firms. However, during my experience as an associate at a top 10 firm I have found that the best information on firms out there still is the vault guide, as flawed as it is.

53 - no one gives a sh*t about your "experience as an associate at a top 10 firm" That is...except you.

18 - LW recruits @ the Big Orange because the NY Office Managing Partner is an alum. See http://www.lw.com/Attorneys.aspx?page=AttorneyBio&attno=01533. They don't often hire from there though.

Latham's unassigned system sounds nice, but when the economy gets slow, you have an entire summer class of people all vying for the same litigation work... and no one is making their hours because of it.

being assigned to a group helps divvy up the work and eliminates competition for good work in the first years. other than that tho, latham is a really great place.

What does all this "the people were nice" during the interview stuff even mean? How can you tell during a 20 minute interview if you'd want to spend your non-billable time having a beer with them? How can you tell that they're "nice" at 4am while trying to meet a deadline?

38 - you're right to be concerned. a ton of latham first years, including those who wanted to do corporate work, got stuck on a massive doc review last fall/winter (8 hours a day x 6 days a week). they had no option to turn it down for other work.

46 - you're a fool, of course a partner at another firm will have nothing good to say about their competitors.

Are you a lawyer? Do you have any experience? That's a moronic comment. I (and other lawyers I know) are constently saying positive things about partners/associates at other law firms. Truth is, when you're up against good lawyers, your experience is much better than when you're up against people who don't know what they're doing. There is generally a hell of a lot more respectful and cordial behavior in the law than you would think.

But 50. who cares about Kirkland's New York office? Nobody has even asked about it. The Chicago office is on par or better than everyone else, plus you get better than most of those jokers in New York with Chicago COL. Going to Kirkland New York would just be silly.

"46 - you're a fool, of course a partner at another firm will have nothing good to say about their competitors."

You must work for Skadden. Partners and associates at my v10 have lots of great things to say about our peer firms.

50 - you make band 3 sound really bad ("the likes of...").

these are the band 3 firms in comm lit. you are right that 10 nyc firms are ahead, but these are still very top firms to grouped with:

Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
Cahill Gordon & Reindel
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Kaye Scholer
Kirkland & Ellis
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
Proskauer Rose
Shearman & Sterling
White & Case LLP
Willkie Farr & Gallagher
WilmerHale

62 is grasping for straws.

Kaye Scholer? Shearman? please.

Stay away from Kirkland LA. That place is a sinking ship nightmare.

K&E only gets 3 weeks vacation. Latham has a minimum billables requirement. The rest are NYC based and get 4 weeks vacation with no billables requirement for a bonus.

58 -- That's actually a great sales pitch. If 8 hours per day, 6 days a week is hard work at Latham, I wish I worked there. I rarely bill under 50 hours per week at my v10 firm, and I've had more 70-hour weeks than 50-hour weeks.

Response to 66 - Don't forget that this 8 hours a day/6 days a week was just on one document review assignment which was given to associates who did not want to do litigation. Associates who wanted to build skills and learn about other areas probably ended up working much more than that.

64
any reason why Kirkland LA is sinking?

Having worked against Cleary on a large, long litigation, I was impressed -- although, admittedly, the strategy of their litigation appears to have been directed by a single partner, so this might be a minor data point. They were crafty, but that's not the same as litigating like an asshole. Conservative lawyers (like my former firm) try to protect the firm's white shoe reputation. Asshole lawyers break the rules and often get away with it. Crafty lawyers do all they can within the boundaries of the rules to win for their client. Cleary seemed to be the latter (and yes I know about the sanctions). Anyway, all the associates seemed pleasant, fourth and fifth years defended and took depositions, but junior associates appeared to get chewed up and spit out. I wouldn't have a problem with litigating with or against them again. It is much more difficult to litigate against incompetent jackasses.

The Kirkland art budget is only for certain offices. You don't get it in SF, for instance.

70, well I guess I'm cancelling my Kirkland SF callback :)

Speaking of which, what are the best corp. finance/M&A firms in SF (as a lateral attorney)?

Is there much difference in terms of culture/QoL/people at Latham NY, DC, K&E DC, NY, Weil NY, or Cleary DC?

Can a first-year get good antitrust work at all of them?

So here's a question from an ignorant law student. Do I have to go to all of the cocktail receptions the night before my OCI interview? Do I wear a suit if I go, or is b/c appropriate (that's what all of the dress codes say). Thx

74 - Here's my advice (take it with a grain of salt obviously).

If you wear a suit, make sure it's a well fitting suit and not an off the rack bag suit. Nothing makes someone look more un-professional than the "I just got out of college and don't know anything" look, which is exactly what the ill-fitted bag-suit says.

Also, if you go business casual or put on a sport coat or something, it says you are confident and mature (seems like backwards logic, but it's true).

Oh, and I would go to the cocktail reception before your interview. It's just good form.

73, dont know about firm cultures

But Cleary (according to Chambers and Vault specialty rankings, and hearsay which probably results from the rankings) is tops in Antitrust.

69 - just curious (as a former Cleary litigator), what partner it was? Moloney, Gitter, Lowenthal?

73: I'll say this - several years ago, I turned down an offer from Weil because during my interviews, I met some of the most egotistical, shallow people I've ever come across, and that's not what I wanted for colleagues (I still remember one attorney's comment when I asked him why he picked Weil: "Because when I tell my friends from law school I work here, they're all impressed")

I've since met some very nice Weil lawyers, so maybe they just did a horrendous job picking people to interview candidates back when I was a law student. But its something to be aware of.

And 75 - the off the rack suit also says "I can't afford to buy tailored suits". For most students, thats usually true, and anyone who expects more as an interviewer probably works at a place with a culture I wouldn't want to be a part of anyway.

concur with 78 on suits/attire

all firms expect is a neat professional look. They realize you're a student and dont expect 2k Armani, cufflings, etc. The content of the interview is infinitely more important

13/23 - In the Latham unassigned system , all projects and assignments are run through a central "book" which sends out notices of available work that unassigned associates can then express interest in. You may or may not get the work if you express interest, but you can try. If you're not interested in litigation, you don't express interest in a doc review, and if you're not interested in corporate you don't ask to be put on a deal. I've never heard of anyone being pressed into service - I'm sure it's possible if there's a huge case going, but it's unusual. Of course, if your hours are down and you need work, you might sign up for something that's not normally your cup of tea, but that's your choice. There's a lot of freedom to choose your own work in the first two years, and while there are certainly people who head straight for the department they want, there are plenty of others who don't.

75 - I'd automatically reject anyone who was stupid and immature (see: your definition of "confident and mature") enough to show up in a sports coat or business casual for a law firm interview. It's an interview; wear a suit. Also, no one cares what kind of suit you're wearing, so long as it's not filthy or hot pink. You're not expected to be wealthy, just to have common sense.

75 - I'd automatically reject anyone who was stupid and immature (see: your definition of "confident and mature") enough to show up in a sports coat or business casual for a law firm interview. It's an interview; wear a suit. Also, no one cares what kind of suit you're wearing, so long as it's not filthy or hot pink. You're not expected to be wealthy, just to have common sense.

74, you should definitely wear a tux with a dinner jacket.

75 - I'd automatically reject anyone who was stupid and immature (see: your definition of "confident and mature") enough to show up in a sports coat or business casual for a law firm interview. It's an interview; wear a suit. Also, no one cares what kind of suit you're wearing, so long as it's not filthy or hot pink. You're not expected to be wealthy, just to have common sense.

Sorry for the repeat posts. Error message here too.
-81/82/84

81, 82, 84--I'd automatically reject anyone who didn't catch on to the fact that he was aksing about a cocktail party, not the interview. I would not reject someone who posted three times.

Only thing is, 85, the OP was asking about what to wear to a pre-interview reception. HTH.

-Not 75

74 here--we're talking about the evening cocktail receptions, not the interview.

46: where was your friend's Dad a partner?? I'd like to work for him!

I turned down a summer position in Kirkland's NYC office to do IP work because I wanted to remain in Boston. Whoops.

Right on 81. 75 is a tool box re: comment on bag-suit. Even David Boise wears suits from Lands End. So long as you look neat and clean (pay for a nice shirt, shoes & tie) you'll be fine. Content of interview counts for so much more.

75 (or others):

What do you do if two firms you're interested in have receptions at the same time?

Right on 81. 75 is a tool box re: comment on bag-suit. Even David Boise wears suits from Lands End. So long as you look neat and clean (pay for a nice shirt, shoes & tie) you'll be fine. Content of interview counts for so much more.

With respect to suits, one can wear an off-the-rack suit (I agree with posters who point out that most law students can't afford bespoke suits), but for the love of God spend the $50 to have it altered. If you can, splurge on a $150 - $200 custom tailored shirt, which may be expensive but will look great with an altered off-the-rack suit.

92,

I'd suggest either cloning yourself or filling out an application to work at Jacoby and Meyers or CWT because your fuct.

Wear a really low slung dress to the reception, after all, the partners who volunteer their time to fly out to some campus and drink with a bunch of ignorant social climbing kids are usually the partners most intested in student bodies.

78 -- I am a first year at Weil (NY) and I can tell you without hesitation that you just had a bad interview. The people at Weil are outstanding -- social, fun, and genuinely nice, and definitely not egotistical. It's a great place to work. Partners are very respectful of associates, and our hours are not bad by biglaw standards. And the work is amazing. I'm extremely happy with my choice.

Maybe I'm generalizing, but aren't all the K&E big dogs based in Chicago? If you have the choice between a branch office (even if it is NY) and the home office in another city, I'd go with the home office, especially if that is where the power resides. And K&E Chicago (for litigation anyway), is probably the most prestigious firm in town, bar none. Although certain types of work are not done at K&E because of conflicts.

Kirkland is a highly regarded firm in both NYC and Chicago. The private equity work that Kirkland gets is phenomenal and comparable to any prestigious NYC law firm where I worked. Also, Kirkland's former head of their bankruptcy practice now works at Goldman Sachs. As for comment 97, my friends who used to work at Weil hated the firm and the people especially in private equity.

98,

You've obviously never heard of Barlitt Beck for litigation. They are, however, former K&E partners.

Kirkland's former head of bankruptcy now works for Goldman Sachs? Holy crap!
My 22 year old pimply faced cousin works for Goldman as well. Maybe they know each other.

98,

You've obviously never heard of Barlitt Beck for litigation. They are, however, former K&E partners.

101, he works for GS as a partnered MD.

64-
What is going on at Kirkland LA? I am interviewing with them and was seriously considering going there if offered because of the bonus money and training etc... Can you be more specific about why someone in my position should avoid it?

102, I guess I was speaking in the context of places where law students could actually land jobs out of law school. From what I understand, Bartlit Beck is not one of those places. Isn't that place really only accessible to former a) SCOTUS clerks or b) COA clerks from a very prestigious circuit/judge? If we throw boutiques like Bartlit Beck into the mix, then there are a fair number of firms, across the country and in all practice areas, that are more "prestigious" than those in the V10.

-98

68 -- Kirkland LA is VERY slow, but not sure if that's more just the market. My friends at Latham, Paul Hastings, OMM, all seem to be extremely slow in LA.

As for Kirkland litigation (excluding IP), at least in NY, it's true they don't get as many super high-profile cases (though it still gets more than I would like). There's definitely an inverse relationship between quality of work and the size of the case. Kirkland NY gets a lot of mid-sized cases staffed with 2-4 people, which means a much bigger role for junior attorneys.

25, it depends what type of IP practice you're interested in. If you are leaning toward litigation then K&E is great choice, also don't be so quick to blow off Weil either. Weil has been involved in many large stakes IP cases. That said, if IP litigation is your desire than those two firms are where you want to be. If you're interested in more of a IP prosecution type of practice than certainly K&E is not where you want to go.

105,

Point well taken.

-102

I concur with the 2nd paragraph of 106.

-50 (and 30)

Latham must have the most perfectly run public relations machine. For whatever reason everyone believes it's the greatest place to work at with the friendliest, super-duper nicest colleagues you could have ever imagined. I can't exactly explain why, but I start having this hunch that it's all a bunch of bull.

110,

I only consider Latham to be a "fun" place to work relative to massive biglaw V20 megafirms (Skadden, Sullivan, Weil, Simpson, KE). I'd imagine, if you "fit" and have the qualifications, that smaller shops like Munger, Irell, Williams and Connolly, Finnegan, Fish, etc. are better places to work. Also, my uninformed impression is that Cleary and Davis are relatively enjoyable places to work as far as biglaw goes, probably more so than Latham.

21: Yikes. I think you may [understandably] be in a bit of denial about what associates are doing at other V10 firms. If you really want to be a litigator you should not settle for managing doc review for two years or more.

106 - pardon me for being "slow", but by SLOW do you mean that there is a lack of work in LA? If that's the case, plus what you also described in your post, then shouldn't almost all LA shops be sinking?

I agree with 106. The mega-cases/famous cases tend to be handled out of our (K&E's) Chicago office (which is 2-3x larger).

However, that's not where all of the talent is. There are several big general lit partners here at K&E NY (Putnam, Pratt, Riemer, Bernick) that I would never, ever want to see on the opposite side of a case.

I spent three years at Cleary Corporate at the turn of the century. For what its worth, I found the firm to be an incredibly decent and welcoming place to work quite hard (but not, on average, as hard as its "peers"). It was also a place where people, including partners, had some perspective on the need for a life outside of the office. I left the firm clear in the notion that the practice of corporate law is not for me, but I also left convinced that Cleary presents one of the most humane (its all relative) places to practice this form of law.

Also, in my time, Cleary was definitely more selective in its hiring at my law school (HYS) than S&C, Simpson or Skadden .

#105, please indulge me--these top-notch litigation boutiques totally fly under the radar, yet they seem like the great destinations for someone with the right lofty credentials. I should be within striking distance (competitive COA clerkship and the right school)--will they come find me, or do I need to hunt these boutiques down?