Date: February 2nd, 2007 3:26 PM Author: Contagious Pervert Space
Of course it's hypothetical at this point, but assuming I got offers at both, where to go? Seems like both pay above market in Chicago and make you work above market hours. Thoughts?
Date: February 2nd, 2007 3:44 PM Author: mentally impaired avocado state
One thing to think about is bonuses. While Skadden gives the entire class the same bonus, Kirkland rewards those that put in more hours than their peers with a larger bonus. So if you work more, you get paid for it, which seems fair. Skadden does provide a larger base salary but then tapers their bonus to make total compensation pretty much equal to the Chicago market. As such, Kirkland really is the only Chicago firm last year that exceeded the Chicago market by a considerable amount (and did so via large bonuses).
Date: February 2nd, 2007 5:49 PM Author: mentally impaired avocado state
At this point, I think you have to at least assume that Kirkland moves to 145k, leaving a 15k gap where there used to be a 10k gap. The charts still show a slight advantage for Kirkland but really I don't think anybody knows the impact of the recent salary raise on bonuses. The partners at Kirkland have to be a little peeved after thinking they had a winner with the large bonus only to have Simpson play the ball right back at them.
Date: February 2nd, 2007 5:38 PM Author: costumed diverse preventive strike office Subject: on writ of certiorari to the XO SCOTUS
XO SCOTUS delivered the opinion of the Court.
oneiota, the original poster ("OP"), asks whether he should "go" to the law firm of Skadden Arps ("Skadden") or Kirkland & Ellis ("Kirkland").
We first consider whether OP has standing to raise this question. “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). As OP does not have an offer from either firm—he in fact concedes his inquiry is "hypothetical"—OP cannot plausibly lie within the zone of interest required by our decision in Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984). We therefore conclude that OP lacks standing to start this thread.
We pause to note that OP's claim also fails to demonstrate ripeness. We said in Texas v. United States that "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all." 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998). OP's request for information on offers he does not have is precisely the kind of "contingent future event" our jurisprudence has rejected as premature.
This thread is therefore dismissed with prejudice. OP may pursue any further navel-gazing he wishes not inconsistent with this opinion.
Date: August 31st, 2007 11:00 PM Author: Unholy useless brakes
So, we're to believe that a poster (who has barely posted a single thing in 8 months besides this horrible OP) happens to see this thread on the day it gets bumped and also just happens to have callbacks at both.
Sorry, whokebe, much easier to believe that you're an alternate moniker of a reg and came here to salvage what was left of your damaged pride.
Date: August 31st, 2007 10:59 PM Author: Soul-stirring crawly death wish
sorry, I'm not a lawyer. would never dream of it.
the reason the chicago market is so shitty is because every fucking TTT NU, UIUC, and rancid Chicago-Kent grad, not to mention all the loyola and dePaul mouth breathers are climbing over each other trying to get jobs.
Date: August 31st, 2007 11:03 PM Author: Soul-stirring crawly death wish
and you probably get fucking laughed at with your 30k/yr nonprofittt job in Chicago. i would rather graduate from Cardozo an fucking work for a non vault 100 firm in NYC than skadden in Chicago any day. chicago is a fucking joke.