📅 2025–26 Applications: Vacation Schemes, Open Days & Training Contracts

Find deadlines fast and join the right discussion thread:

Vacation Schemes

Deadlines Discussion

Rolling vs non-rolling checklist included.

Open Days & Insight Schemes

Deadlines

Comprehensive list across top firms.

Training Contracts

Deadlines Discussion

All key TC deadlines in one place.

Make this your strongest application season 💼
Explore the new TCLA Premium →

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andrei Radu" data-source="post: 206211" data-attributes="member: 36777">Hi [USER=3554]@traineeintraining[/USER] for the first question the first way we would look for Kirkland's general competitors will be to identify those that have (i) the best PE and (ii) the best restructuring practices (as those are its areas of focus and main revenue generators in London). Thus, we would look at Latham, Weil, Linklaters, Clifford Chance, and Freshfields. To deepen the analysis, then we could look at other important features of the firm, such as profitability, client base, and culture. Since a significant part of Kirkland's client base is US-based (as opposed to that of the MC, which tends to be more European) and since its profitability is much above that of MC firms, we would then focus more on its US rivals. As such, we could the broaden the list from Latham and Weil to the likes of Simson Thacher and Paul, Weiss. However, if we also account for size, growth, and transactional volume when comparing the firms, the one rival that stands out before all others is Latham. For your second question, the main weaknesses I would identify are the following: <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Insufficiently hedged against risks in the PE industry: While Kirkland has an exceptional restructuring practice, which is know for being counter-cyclical and thus bringing in work and revenues when there is a market downturn, Kirkland's client base in this practice area consists in large part of the same PE firms that it services on the corporate front. Thus, an argument can be made that Kirkland is not well-hedged against the risks affecting the private equity industry as a whole. This is not something that should be simply brushed aside - a number of FT articles this year have highlighted how complex the interlinked world of PE and its debt structure is, and how little is know and/or controlled by regulators. These are features that are reminiscent of the dealmaking context in the world of banking prior to its collapse during the Great Financial Crisis. While PE is of course a very different industry and exposed to very different risks, the idea that it is not immune to systemic failures is one that should be considered.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Go-getter culture makes talent retention difficult: Kirkland is infamous for its meritocratic culture that celebrates and rewards individual achievement, and it is one of the features that has made the firm as successful as it is. Nonetheless, I would argue this is a double edged sword. At the associate level, since Kirkland's pay is for the most part in line with that of the Cravath scale-paying firms (bar some bonuses tied to hitting exceptionally high target hours). However, the firm has a reputation for a lack of W/L balance and has path to partnership know to be an extremely demanding, even by big law standards. As such, it is possible that it will miss out on students who have the option to go to rivals that pay just as well and are known for a less exacting culture. On the partner side, the focus on rewarding the rainmakers and the almost completely merit-based compensation system could lead to a lack of a feeling of loyalty towards the firm. This should make poaching from rivals with better offers harder to ward off, and perhaps the Paul, Weiss raid can be seen as an example of that. </li> </ol></blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom

Search

Search

📅 2025–26 Applications: Vacation Schemes, Open Days & Training Contracts

Reply to thread