Related Posts
Bowl Leader
Hi Fishes... Need 11 likes please
Additional Posts in Big Law
Subject Expert
Subject Expert
Coach
Mentor
Subject Expert
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Coach
I'm sure some will say this is false, but most will likely say that while KE's best is close to others' best but the drop-off from there is much more dramatic than "peers." KE has many more laterals they seem to pick up with minimal fuss and then everyone makes NEP, so it would be much harder to believe the quality holds up. And from my perspective as a recruiter, firms will often preface that they don't will be very discerning of KE NEPs since they aren't at the level they need their partners and won't be able to bring business. KE does a fantastic job of bringing in more work than anyone else, but I'd argue it's due to having more bodies and being great at networking at the highest levels and less so wirh quality. I'd actually argue their litigation group is their best in terms of top to bottom quality but it isn't as sexy as their PE and RX groups.
Inversely, the others rarely hire laterals and get the best law students. So one can argue they are more focused on quality and less on getting more bodies in there.
I’m not sure I follow. If these other top firms do not hire laterals or hire very few, how does the fact that KE hiring more laterals make those laterals lower quality lawyers?
I’m sure you and I agree that there are a lot of V50 lawyers that are better than V5 lawyers. If KE hires more of those than its peers, then I don’t see the quality issue.
KE hires more laterals because it has more volume of work.
In K&E M&A. Never worked at other V5s, but come across them all the time. Never felt a sense of “inferiority”, based on opposing counsel reaction, or on anything else. Not in terms of competence or in terms of perception.
If looking at it from client perspective, I don’t think there is any stronger refuting evidence than our revenue and recurring client base. Our fees are the same as these other top firms, so clients choose us for a reason.
If looking at it from the talent pool, the lawyers that go to K&E are also thinking about these firms and other top firms. So it’s not like K&E’s incoming associates are coming from worse law schools / have lower GPAs. And for laterals, K&E interviews them and vets them like any of these top firms. Would K&E hire laterals to put them in front of clients if they weren’t good enough?
And with K&E dominating PE M&A, I’d say K&E is at least on par in that area as any of these top firms.
Enthusiast
An alum at K&E (who was a NSP and has since lateraled) told me explicitly that K&E has a lower GPA cutoff for my school (T-30). For context, I got an interview with K&E and was dinged in less than 24 hours by Latham and Skadden; ended up at a V30.
That being said, as an applicant, I really do respect K&E for looking at people outside a small subset of schools.
I don’t understand this - why would so many clients repeatedly use K&E for their M&A work if it was inferior to the other V5? It’s not like it’s any cheaper. Quality certainly varies as it’s a huge firm but to say it’s inferior than the others just sounds like something someone at the other firms would say, probably wishing they had as big a market share as K&E does
Enthusiast
No - the opposite.
Started typing a long reply and then realized I don’t care enough about KE..
Enthusiast
A lot of cope here from firms that just can't seem to please their clients (as indicated by marketshare and revenue) but somehow employ muh "better lawyers"
Coach
A5 exactly, if a V50 wants to complain they can try to make that argument, but why are clients not just hiring Wachtell and Cravath for everything instead? Also, you can’t simultaneously claim that Kirkland isn’t prestigious and are actually losers that nobody respects, while at the same time excusing all the money they make as clients just paying for a fancy name brand.
Subject Expert
K&E puts like second years in charge of main transaction docs
This was not my experience when I worked there. They usually had 4th years and occasionally 3rd on those docs. Years 1-3 were primarily ancillary agreements
K&E M&A strategy is to just mark everything up for the sake of marking it up. They’re just incessant and comment on the most banal things maybe because they think more redlining means they done good boss
Enthusiast
It is tho