The down and dirty truth of the matter is that most firms poach on a hierarchy: Int firms --> big4/"Int Firms"/Certain FLAs + JLVs --> midsizes like HE or SLB --> small firm/chinatown one man firms. Usually, the best you can jump is two rungs, in fact most ppl can only jump one rung at a time.

There are of course exceptions to this rule, for disputes, there are of course top-notch litigators and arbitrators (such as Davinder Singh or Michael Hwang) who make their own smaller firms and command top-tier gradings and are seen as "on par" or even above the usual int/big4 level.

Unfortunately, Corp law (and non-contentious matters in general) almost strictly follows the abovementioned hierarchy, because most clients don't feel there is much of a difference between corporate lawyers (past a certain level), which I have to admit is relatively accurate.

Therefore, the clients mostly choose the firm based on size (and to conflict out the bigger firms from acting against them on litigious matters - i.e. see how most banks hire almost all int firms/big4 firms to prevent claimants from hiring these firms against them). In general, you'll get the bigger deals/insolvency actions in big4 practices than firms like Blackoak.

While I've heard good things about their insolv practice, they have a certain culture that is not for everyone (as has been stated by others in the thread), and their "reputation" is definitely not as good as big4/int firm insolv.

Put it this way, if you trained/assoc-ed at the better big4 insolv teams, you'd likely be welcomed with open arms at Blackoak (due to your experiences with large insolv actions). Conversely, you may not find the big4 as welcoming if you trained/assoc-ed at Blackoak (although it is still possible to jump).