Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=288721
Kellogg Hansen - so prestigious everyone immediately knows how to spell their firm name...Anonymous User wrote:
Yeah, sorry Kirkland. Proposed revised:
1. Wachtell Lipton Rosen and Katz
2. Williams & Connolly
3. Susman Godfrey
4. Kellog Hansen
5. Boies Schiller
6. Cravath
10 years ago, Kirkland was ranked 10th in Vault. It was the top ranked firm in Chicago and 14th ranked firm in NY.Anonymous User wrote:I put Kirkland at 5 because over the last 10 years, it has become perhaps the most recognizable firm in the U.S. Abovethelaw had a whole post about "What would Kirkland do?" when the salary bumps were announced. It's highly leveraged yes, but it also typically provides significantly greater bonuses than other firms with a ton of associates. It's has the most revenue, it does the biggest deals, it has some of the best associate training (and as a result, associates get substantive experience relatively early), it gives the partner title at year 6, and its alumni are in leadership positions literally everywhere in corporate America and that network actively helps current associates go to bigger and better things. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems pretty prestigious to me.
It's 100% a better candidate for #5 than Latham, that's for sureAnonymous User wrote:I put Kirkland at 5 because over the last 10 years, it has become perhaps the most recognizable firm in the U.S. Abovethelaw had a whole post about "What would Kirkland do?" when the salary bumps were announced. It's highly leveraged yes, but it also typically provides significantly greater bonuses than other firms with a ton of associates. It's has the most revenue, it does the biggest deals, it has some of the best associate training (and as a result, associates get substantive experience relatively early), it gives the partner title at year 6, and its alumni are in leadership positions literally everywhere in corporate America and that network actively helps current associates go to bigger and better things. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems pretty prestigious to me.
10 years ago, Kirkland was ranked 10th in Vault. It was the top ranked firm in Chicago and 14th ranked firm in NY.Anonymous User wrote:I put Kirkland at 5 because over the last 10 years, it has become perhaps the most recognizable firm in the U.S. Abovethelaw had a whole post about "What would Kirkland do?" when the salary bumps were announced. It's highly leveraged yes, but it also typically provides significantly greater bonuses than other firms with a ton of associates. It's has the most revenue, it does the biggest deals, it has some of the best associate training (and as a result, associates get substantive experience relatively early), it gives the partner title at year 6, and its alumni are in leadership positions literally everywhere in corporate America and that network actively helps current associates go to bigger and better things. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems pretty prestigious to me.
Where in his/her post did he say Kirkland was a shit firm a decade ago? The only implication is that went from a position of not being the most recognizable, to being perhaps the most recognizable.Anonymous User wrote:10 years ago, Kirkland was ranked 10th in Vault. It was the top ranked firm in Chicago and 14th ranked firm in NY.Anonymous User wrote:I put Kirkland at 5 because over the last 10 years, it has become perhaps the most recognizable firm in the U.S. Abovethelaw had a whole post about "What would Kirkland do?" when the salary bumps were announced. It's highly leveraged yes, but it also typically provides significantly greater bonuses than other firms with a ton of associates. It's has the most revenue, it does the biggest deals, it has some of the best associate training (and as a result, associates get substantive experience relatively early), it gives the partner title at year 6, and its alumni are in leadership positions literally everywhere in corporate America and that network actively helps current associates go to bigger and better things. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems pretty prestigious to me.
Just because you were living under a rock doesn’t mean Kirkland was a shit firm a decade ago. Firms like Cooley have made a huge dent. Kirkland just figured out how to get law students to choose them.
Doesn't W&C have vastly below-market comp for senior associates?Anonymous User wrote:
Yeah, sorry Kirkland. Proposed revised:
1. Wachtell Lipton Rosen and Katz
2. Williams & Connolly
3. Susman Godfrey
4. Kellog Hansen
5. Boies Schiller
6. Cravath
I’m a graduate of one of those schools and that’s certainly not true. I agree with the very top of your list, but I know several people in my class/surrounding classes chose Boies over Cravath/DPW on down your list. They were all towards the top of the class most on LR.plurilingue wrote:At CLS/NYU, the prestige order is essentially correlated with selectivity and is like this:
Elite boutiques (Susman, MTO, KVN) = WLRK = W&C >>> Cravath / DPW / S&C / Cleary > STB > Paul, Weiss / Debevoise / Quinn > Kirkland / Latham / Weil > Sidley / Gibson (excepting LA) / Covington (excepting D.C.)
Boies is much less prestigious than the elite boutiques, but I don't have a good sense of where it falls. Maybe somewhere around Quinn.
FWIW, where I went (MVP) the list would be similar:Anonymous User wrote:I’m a graduate of one of those schools and that’s certainly not true. I agree with the very top of your list, but I know several people in my class/surrounding classes chose Boies over Cravath/DPW on down your list. They were all towards the top of the class most on LR.plurilingue wrote:At CLS/NYU, the prestige order is essentially correlated with selectivity and is like this:
Elite boutiques (Susman, MTO, KVN) = WLRK = W&C >>> Cravath / DPW / S&C / Cleary > STB > Paul, Weiss / Debevoise / Quinn > Kirkland / Latham / Weil > Sidley / Gibson (excepting LA) / Covington (excepting D.C.)
Boies is much less prestigious than the elite boutiques, but I don't have a good sense of where it falls. Maybe somewhere around Quinn.
The prevailing thought going into OCI (2016) was that in NYC, Boies is more selective and prestigious than all but WLRK and Susman.
Kirkland was 5th in 2017, 16th in 2016, 11th in 2015 in the Bloomberg M&A league tables. Are those really “the biggest deals”?Anonymous User wrote:I put Kirkland at 5 because over the last 10 years, it has become perhaps the most recognizable firm in the U.S. Abovethelaw had a whole post about "What would Kirkland do?" when the salary bumps were announced. It's highly leveraged yes, but it also typically provides significantly greater bonuses than other firms with a ton of associates. It's has the most revenue, it does the biggest deals, it has some of the best associate training (and as a result, associates get substantive experience relatively early), it gives the partner title at year 6, and its alumni are in leadership positions literally everywhere in corporate America and that network actively helps current associates go to bigger and better things. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems pretty prestigious to me.
No, this is not the prestige rank at CCN. LOL at Boies as less selective than Cravath/DPW/STB. Boies follows closely after Wachtell and W&C—it gives maybe 5 or 6 offers while the white shoe giants give 50+. And Munger is not a litigation boutique. Its comparable in selectivity to wachtell and W&C. Susman and Keker don’t even recruit 2L’s. Susman’s NY office is in a different level of selectivity for clerks - its basically just feeder clerkship applicants (most of the recent hires have been SCOTUS clerks), which isn’t true of Wachtell, W&C, or Munger.plurilingue wrote:At CLS/NYU, the prestige rank is essentially correlated with selectivity and is like this:
Elite boutiques (Susman, MTO, KVN) = WLRK = W&C >>> Cravath = DPW = S&C = Cleary > STB = Skadden > Paul, Weiss = Debevoise = Quinn = Boies > Kirkland = Latham = Weil > Sidley = Gibson (excepting LA) = Covington (excepting D.C.)
CR. Boies hires 0/1 NYUmo every year, and W&C has all but blacklisted NYU.jbagelboy wrote:No, this is not the prestige rank at CCN. LOL at Boies as less selective than Cravath/DPW/STB. Boies follows closely after Wachtell and W&C—it gives maybe 5 or 6 offers while the white shoe giants give 50+. And Munger is not a litigation boutique. Its comparable in selectivity to wachtell and W&C. Susman and Keker don’t even recruit 2L’s. Susman’s NY office is in a different level of selectivity for clerks - its basically just feeder clerkship applicants (most of the recent hires have been SCOTUS clerks), which isn’t true of Wachtell, W&C, or Munger.plurilingue wrote:At CLS/NYU, the prestige rank is essentially correlated with selectivity and is like this:
Elite boutiques (Susman, MTO, KVN) = WLRK = W&C >>> Cravath = DPW = S&C = Cleary > STB = Skadden > Paul, Weiss = Debevoise = Quinn = Boies > Kirkland = Latham = Weil > Sidley = Gibson (excepting LA) = Covington (excepting D.C.)
And the rest of the list is wrong too. Simpson somehow below Davis Polk and Cleary in selectivity? What? And Gibson is certainly more competitive than Sidley, Weil, or Kirkland. You must have had a very atrange recruiting cycle
Lol. Best thing I’ve read in this thread.oblig.lawl.ref wrote:Wow, this thread blows so hard. We now "debating" which Walmart-like mega firm, like Kirkland, is better than which lit-only firm that the biggest waspy-est nerd from law review had a hard on about. The whole point of vault is to scientifically and arbitrarily rank firms in order of prestige and it does a pretty good job of it already.
Sorry Kirkland, Susman, Boies, etc. fanbois. Prestige is for the old NYC, full service, predominantly corporate, firms only. Enjoy your market shattering bonuses and above market comp (below market comp for W&C?) because that's what it's there to compensate for. A lacking vault prestige.
agreed. you can't buy a Ferrari with vault prestige, but you CAN impress a 1L at Brooklyn Law School. and that's what really mattersoblig.lawl.ref wrote:Wow, this thread blows so hard. We now "debating" which Walmart-like mega firm, like Kirkland, is better than which lit-only firm that the biggest waspy-est nerd from law review had a hard on about. The whole point of vault is to scientifically and arbitrarily rank firms in order of prestige and it does a pretty good job of it already.
Sorry Kirkland, Susman, Boies, etc. fanbois. Prestige is for the old NYC, full service, predominantly corporate, firms only. Enjoy your market shattering bonuses and above market comp (below market comp for W&C?) because that's what it's there to compensate for. A lacking vault prestige.
Lol at Kirkland there. Where's Boies? Munger?Anonymous User wrote:The Real Top 5 Most Prestigious Law Firms: (firms with over 100 lawyers)
1. Wachtell Lipton Rosen and Katz
2. Williams & Connolly
3. Susman Godfrey
4. Cravath
5. Kirkland
(based on a combination of associate pay, partnership prospects, brand recognition, viable exit options)
Any consensus that doesn't have Wachtell in first by a wide margin has to be pretty dumb.Anonymous User wrote:These debates over prestige are why there are vault rankings to begin with. These are literally the consensus view among biglaw associates of “prestige.”
W&C currently has several summers from NYU.Wild Card wrote:CR. Boies hires 0/1 NYUmo every year, and W&C has all but blacklisted NYU.jbagelboy wrote:No, this is not the prestige rank at CCN. LOL at Boies as less selective than Cravath/DPW/STB. Boies follows closely after Wachtell and W&C—it gives maybe 5 or 6 offers while the white shoe giants give 50+. And Munger is not a litigation boutique. Its comparable in selectivity to wachtell and W&C. Susman and Keker don’t even recruit 2L’s. Susman’s NY office is in a different level of selectivity for clerks - its basically just feeder clerkship applicants (most of the recent hires have been SCOTUS clerks), which isn’t true of Wachtell, W&C, or Munger.plurilingue wrote:At CLS/NYU, the prestige rank is essentially correlated with selectivity and is like this:
Elite boutiques (Susman, MTO, KVN) = WLRK = W&C >>> Cravath = DPW = S&C = Cleary > STB = Skadden > Paul, Weiss = Debevoise = Quinn = Boies > Kirkland = Latham = Weil > Sidley = Gibson (excepting LA) = Covington (excepting D.C.)
And the rest of the list is wrong too. Simpson somehow below Davis Polk and Cleary in selectivity? What? And Gibson is certainly more competitive than Sidley, Weil, or Kirkland. You must have had a very atrange recruiting cycle
Lol stupid stupid anon. The vault survey is a huge joke. Most people (including myself and every associate I know that fills it out) does so without any serious consideration and mostly to shit on whichever firm is giving them a hard time recently (looking at you QUINN).Anonymous User wrote:These debates over prestige are why there are vault rankings to begin with. These are literally the consensus view among biglaw associates of “prestige.”
lol Kirkland associates crying themselves to sleep at night while Skadden associates bathe in the prestige and hours-contingent bonus.oblig.lawl.ref wrote:Wow, this thread blows so hard. We now "debating" which Walmart-like mega firm, like Kirkland, is better than which lit-only firm that the biggest waspy-est nerd from law review had a hard on about. The whole point of vault is to scientifically and arbitrarily rank firms in order of prestige and it does a pretty good job of it already.
Sorry Kirkland, Susman, Boies, etc. fanbois. Prestige is for the old NYC, full service, predominantly corporate, firms only. Enjoy your market shattering bonuses and above market comp (below market comp for W&C?) because that's what it's there to compensate for. A lacking vault prestige.
Any prestige rankings that put Cravath at the top above Wachtell and W&C must be pretty dumb, because if you go to law school and go through OCI, you know that the law review people with the best grades end up going to boutiques, Wachtell or W&C, not Cravath, Kirkland or Latham.Anonymous User wrote:These debates over prestige are why there are vault rankings to begin with. These are literally the consensus view among biglaw associates of “prestige.”
W&C's prestige is still so confusing to me. Poverty isn't prestigious.Anonymous User wrote:Any prestige rankings that put Cravath at the top above Wachtell and W&C must be pretty dumb, because if you go to law school and go through OCI, you know that the law review people with the best grades end up going to boutiques, Wachtell or W&C, not Cravath, Kirkland or Latham.Anonymous User wrote:These debates over prestige are why there are vault rankings to begin with. These are literally the consensus view among biglaw associates of “prestige.”
While I don't disagree with this contention, I think it depends if you're measuring prestige from the perspective of 1L's, or the greater legal industry. Sure, a boutique, Wachtell or W&C will have a much smaller class size and can therefore afford to be far more picky than its significantly larger counterparts that need to recruit 100+ SA's to a single office. To some extent I think this creates a self fulfilling cycle whereby those firms are perceived as harder to get, and therefore "more prestigious".Anonymous User wrote:Any prestige rankings that put Cravath at the top above Wachtell and W&C must be pretty dumb, because if you go to law school and go through OCI, you know that the law review people with the best grades end up going to boutiques, Wachtell or W&C, not Cravath, Kirkland or Latham.Anonymous User wrote:These debates over prestige are why there are vault rankings to begin with. These are literally the consensus view among biglaw associates of “prestige.”