Kirkland Megathread Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm contemplating whether I should enroll as I am currently admitted. I reached out to CSO and they said I can't have access until I am enrolled. This seems like important information, though.

Caveat, I don’t work at KE, nor did I attend UT, so I have no business answering your question. That said, there are a decent number (51) of UT grads listed online as associates in the three KE offices you mentioned. Reviewing their bios — check for honors, LR, etc. — should give you a rough sense of the credentials you’d need to land an offer. Not the hard cutoff you’re looking for, but better than nothing.

Seeing a 70/30 split in those with honors and without, with obviously 70% being with honors (top 35%). Thanks

[Anonymous User]

Is Kirkland going to seriously enforce its RTO program? Any connected KE folks have thoughts on this. Thanks

[Anonymous User]

Is Kirkland going to seriously enforce its RTO program? Any connected KE folks have thoughts on this. Thanks

From what I've heard, the answer is yes they will. Specifically, certain (powerful) partners have said during meetings recently that they take RTO seriously and expect associates to be in the office on T/W/Th.

[Anonymous User]

Is Kirkland going to seriously enforce its RTO program? Any connected KE folks have thoughts on this. Thanks

From what I've heard, the answer is yes they will. Specifically, certain (powerful) partners have said during meetings recently that they take RTO seriously and expect associates to be in the office on T/W/Th.

Which office? Or is this a firmwide thing?

Kirkland never had an expectation of associates being in the office on any particular day of the week pre pandemic - at least in lit, which requires occasional to frequent travel, people were gone a lot and no one really cared.

[Anonymous User]

Is Kirkland going to seriously enforce its RTO program? Any connected KE folks have thoughts on this. Thanks

From what I've heard, the answer is yes they will. Specifically, certain (powerful) partners have said during meetings recently that they take RTO seriously and expect associates to be in the office on T/W/Th.

Which office? Or is this a firmwide thing?

Kirkland never had an expectation of associates being in the office on any particular day of the week pre pandemic - at least in lit, which requires occasional to frequent travel, people were gone a lot and no one really cared.

I mean the firm has specifically laid out T/W/Th as RTO days. OBVIOUSLY if you are required to work for travel you would not be expected to be in the office (same goes for if you're unwell or taking a personal day for whatever reason). Barring that, hard to interpret the recent signaling in any other way than you're now expected to be in the office on those days on a firmwide basis. And whatever the norm was pre-pandemic, this is the expected new norm. Whether you're brought into the corner partner's office if you don't abide by it is of course something else...

[Anonymous User]

Is Kirkland going to seriously enforce its RTO program? Any connected KE folks have thoughts on this. Thanks

From what I've heard, the answer is yes they will. Specifically, certain (powerful) partners have said during meetings recently that they take RTO seriously and expect associates to be in the office on T/W/Th.

Which office? Or is this a firmwide thing?

Kirkland never had an expectation of associates being in the office on any particular day of the week pre pandemic - at least in lit, which requires occasional to frequent travel, people were gone a lot and no one really cared.

I mean the firm has specifically laid out T/W/Th as RTO days. OBVIOUSLY if you are required to work for travel you would not be expected to be in the office (same goes for if you're unwell or taking a personal day for whatever reason). Barring that, hard to interpret the recent signaling in any other way than you're now expected to be in the office on those days on a firmwide basis. And whatever the norm was pre-pandemic, this is the expected new norm. Whether you're brought into the corner partner's office if you don't abide by it is of course something else...

In Kirkland Texas, the RTO is strongly encouraged but leadership has specifically said things like “nobody is taking attendance” and “if you something comes up and you can’t be there one of those days it’s not a big deal.” Pre-COVID, face time expectations were very loose and the office was quite empty before 10am and after 5pm, so I strongly doubt they will suddenly be hard-asses about it. I’m thinking that as long as you go like.... 4-6 times a month, probably nobody will say anything. But I guess we’ll see!

[Anonymous User]

I'm contemplating whether I should enroll as I am currently admitted. I reached out to CSO and they said I can't have access until I am enrolled. This seems like important information, though.

Caveat, I don’t work at KE, nor did I attend UT, so I have no business answering your question. That said, there are a decent number (51) of UT grads listed online as associates in the three KE offices you mentioned. Reviewing their bios — check for honors, LR, etc. — should give you a rough sense of the credentials you’d need to land an offer. Not the hard cutoff you’re looking for, but better than nothing.

Raw numbers are an imperfect indicator because of the obvious self-selection: huge numbers of students from the best school in Texas will seek jobs at one of the best firms in Texas. For the person asking, what’s more important is the success rate on a per-student basis. Now, I still think those figures are pretty good at UT, but not as good as some T14s for example. UT students at Kirkland seem to have performed pretty well, but not necessarily top of the class (whereas at some lower ranked schools you need to have been way at the top, and at some T14s you can slouch your way in below median).

All told, UT is a great option for Texas BigLaw, and one that Kirkland recruits heavily from. It’s basically our #1 recruiting target in the Texas offices.

[Anonymous User]

Is Kirkland going to seriously enforce its RTO program? Any connected KE folks have thoughts on this. Thanks

From what I've heard, the answer is yes they will. Specifically, certain (powerful) partners have said during meetings recently that they take RTO seriously and expect associates to be in the office on T/W/Th.

Which office? Or is this a firmwide thing?

Kirkland never had an expectation of associates being in the office on any particular day of the week pre pandemic - at least in lit, which requires occasional to frequent travel, people were gone a lot and no one really cared.

I mean the firm has specifically laid out T/W/Th as RTO days. OBVIOUSLY if you are required to work for travel you would not be expected to be in the office (same goes for if you're unwell or taking a personal day for whatever reason). Barring that, hard to interpret the recent signaling in any other way than you're now expected to be in the office on those days on a firmwide basis. And whatever the norm was pre-pandemic, this is the expected new norm. Whether you're brought into the corner partner's office if you don't abide by it is of course something else...

Reading between the lines, the RTO policy seems to have been driven in major part by all the staff who were upset in the autumn during abortive RTO attempt 1 about how they had to come in five days a week and none of the attorneys were showing up. The new policy gives staff a 3-day-in schedule, which is what they wanted (well, what they really wanted was 0-day-in schedule, but this was a compromise at least).

I do think firm leadership wants to see attorneys giving RTO a genuine try (attendance at the events they schedule is a good example--if you're picking the one day in the week to come in, do it then), but at the end of the day if you're: (a) accessible and responsive by phone and e-mail; (b) billing; and (c) creating good work product, they aren't going to care where you're doing it from--that was true pre-COVID and it'll be true post-COVID.

Obviously if you have the unfortunate luck of being in a group / office that weirdly stresses face time, different situation; my take above is generalizing across the firm but the reality will vary somewhat between offices and groups.

[Anonymous User]

Is Kirkland going to seriously enforce its RTO program? Any connected KE folks have thoughts on this. Thanks

From what I've heard, the answer is yes they will. Specifically, certain (powerful) partners have said during meetings recently that they take RTO seriously and expect associates to be in the office on T/W/Th.

Which office? Or is this a firmwide thing?

Kirkland never had an expectation of associates being in the office on any particular day of the week pre pandemic - at least in lit, which requires occasional to frequent travel, people were gone a lot and no one really cared.

I mean the firm has specifically laid out T/W/Th as RTO days. OBVIOUSLY if you are required to work for travel you would not be expected to be in the office (same goes for if you're unwell or taking a personal day for whatever reason). Barring that, hard to interpret the recent signaling in any other way than you're now expected to be in the office on those days on a firmwide basis. And whatever the norm was pre-pandemic, this is the expected new norm. Whether you're brought into the corner partner's office if you don't abide by it is of course something else...

Reading between the lines, the RTO policy seems to have been driven in major part by all the staff who were upset in the autumn during abortive RTO attempt 1 about how they had to come in five days a week and none of the attorneys were showing up. The new policy gives staff a 3-day-in schedule, which is what they wanted (well, what they really wanted was 0-day-in schedule, but this was a compromise at least).

I do think firm leadership wants to see attorneys giving RTO a genuine try (attendance at the events they schedule is a good example--if you're picking the one day in the week to come in, do it then), but at the end of the day if you're: (a) accessible and responsive by phone and e-mail; (b) billing; and (c) creating good work product, they aren't going to care where you're doing it from--that was true pre-COVID and it'll be true post-COVID.

Obviously if you have the unfortunate luck of being in a group / office that weirdly stresses face time, different situation; my take above is generalizing across the firm but the reality will vary somewhat between offices and groups.

I agree with this entirely and think the post beginning "From what I've heard" sounded like bullshit, but I wanted to hear more from that poster to better understand why they think powerful partners were going to check attendance. I don't plan to come in 3x weekly now - maybe 1 or 2x at first and then we'll see where I can settle in.

[Anonymous User]

There is specific direction from the top of the firm that they expect people (staff and attorneys) to be in the office Tuesday through Thursday, save for work travel, vacation, etc. No one is going to walk around taking roll, but share partners by and large are going to be focused on it, at least initially.

[Anonymous User]

There is specific direction from the top of the firm that they expect people (staff and attorneys) to be in the office Tuesday through Thursday, save for work travel, vacation, etc. No one is going to walk around taking roll, but share partners by and large are going to be focused on it, at least initially.

Do you think firm leadership is willing to sacrifice 10-15% productivity for RTO. Serious question.

[Anonymous User]

Is Kirkland going to seriously enforce its RTO program? Any connected KE folks have thoughts on this. Thanks

From what I've heard, the answer is yes they will. Specifically, certain (powerful) partners have said during meetings recently that they take RTO seriously and expect associates to be in the office on T/W/Th.

Which office? Or is this a firmwide thing?

Kirkland never had an expectation of associates being in the office on any particular day of the week pre pandemic - at least in lit, which requires occasional to frequent travel, people were gone a lot and no one really cared.

I mean the firm has specifically laid out T/W/Th as RTO days. OBVIOUSLY if you are required to work for travel you would not be expected to be in the office (same goes for if you're unwell or taking a personal day for whatever reason). Barring that, hard to interpret the recent signaling in any other way than you're now expected to be in the office on those days on a firmwide basis. And whatever the norm was pre-pandemic, this is the expected new norm. Whether you're brought into the corner partner's office if you don't abide by it is of course something else...

Reading between the lines, the RTO policy seems to have been driven in major part by all the staff who were upset in the autumn during abortive RTO attempt 1 about how they had to come in five days a week and none of the attorneys were showing up. The new policy gives staff a 3-day-in schedule, which is what they wanted (well, what they really wanted was 0-day-in schedule, but this was a compromise at least).

I do think firm leadership wants to see attorneys giving RTO a genuine try (attendance at the events they schedule is a good example--if you're picking the one day in the week to come in, do it then), but at the end of the day if you're: (a) accessible and responsive by phone and e-mail; (b) billing; and (c) creating good work product, they aren't going to care where you're doing it from--that was true pre-COVID and it'll be true post-COVID.

Obviously if you have the unfortunate luck of being in a group / office that weirdly stresses face time, different situation; my take above is generalizing across the firm but the reality will vary somewhat between offices and groups.

I agree with this entirely and think the post beginning "From what I've heard" sounded like bullshit, but I wanted to hear more from that poster to better understand why they think powerful partners were going to check attendance. I don't plan to come in 3x weekly now - maybe 1 or 2x at first and then we'll see where I can settle in.

I'm the guy who wrote the "From what I've heard post." Why do I think that? Because an SP who has been at the firm for a while, is considered a leader in their field, and is known to be influential in the office has said so straight from their mouth during a meeting last week. It was in the NYC office. Maybe other parts of the country will be looser.

[Anonymous User]

I can’t speak for others but I noticed during the first RTO attempt end of last year there was a noticeable quiet period of emails between morning/afternoon commute times and it seemed when people logged off from the office that they were a lot more hesitant to log back on once they got home. Will be interesting to see what happens to efficiency and overall firm billable hours during this RTO model.

I’ll probably go into the office next week as I’m not currently busy and can afford the commute and time inefficiency but as soon as my plate fills back up (or overflows) I fully intend to remain working from home where I can bill the most hours and only come in during big social events/required in person meetings that require the 1+ hour daily round trip commute (where I sure as hell won’t be working during such hellish commute). Not going to give back the one silver lining as a result of the pandemic (employee flexibility) just like that.

[Anonymous User]

There is specific direction from the top of the firm that they expect people (staff and attorneys) to be in the office Tuesday through Thursday, save for work travel, vacation, etc. No one is going to walk around taking roll, but share partners by and large are going to be focused on it, at least initially.

Do you think firm leadership is willing to sacrifice 10-15% productivity for RTO. Serious question.

I suspect they would say that’s a false dichotomy/doesn’t take all relevant factors into account/is true in the short term only to the extent it’s true, but assuming that’s the actual trade-off, it seems like they are answering “Yes” by their actions. Revealed preferences speak louder than words.

[Anonymous User]

There is specific direction from the top of the firm that they expect people (staff and attorneys) to be in the office Tuesday through Thursday, save for work travel, vacation, etc. No one is going to walk around taking roll, but share partners by and large are going to be focused on it, at least initially.

Do you think firm leadership is willing to sacrifice 10-15% productivity for RTO. Serious question.

I suspect they would say that’s a false dichotomy/doesn’t take all relevant factors into account/is true in the short term only to the extent it’s true, but assuming that’s the actual trade-off, it seems like they are answering “Yes” by their actions. Revealed preferences speak louder than words.

The firm would be willing to sacrifice 0% productivity. The revealed preference of the share partners is money. The thinking is that some degree of return to office will be net beneficial e.g., for teamwork and collaboration but if there's a big pushback they'll recalibrate (which leads me to think they aren't going to enforce this too hard to avoid that situation anyway).

[Anonymous User]

There is specific direction from the top of the firm that they expect people (staff and attorneys) to be in the office Tuesday through Thursday, save for work travel, vacation, etc. No one is going to walk around taking roll, but share partners by and large are going to be focused on it, at least initially.

Do you think firm leadership is willing to sacrifice 10-15% productivity for RTO. Serious question.

I suspect they would say that’s a false dichotomy/doesn’t take all relevant factors into account/is true in the short term only to the extent it’s true, but assuming that’s the actual trade-off, it seems like they are answering “Yes” by their actions. Revealed preferences speak louder than words.

The firm would be willing to sacrifice 0% productivity. The revealed preference of the share partners is money. The thinking is that some degree of return to office will be net beneficial e.g., for teamwork and collaboration but if there's a big pushback they'll recalibrate (which leads me to think they aren't going to enforce this too hard to avoid that situation anyway).

A member of the Firm Committee in my office (aka the people making all firm-wide decisions) was very open and explicit with us about the whole thing. This SP explained that they’d been collecting a bunch of feedback from lawyers at all levels, who seemed divided between people that wanted to come back like normal, and people who wanted permanent 100% WFH. This 3x days/week policy was their best attempt at striking a middle ground that everyone would find acceptable, even if nobody was truly happy with it. They hope that it works, but as you said if it falls apart, they’ll reevaluate.

They chose Tuesday-Thursday (as opposed to any random 3 days like Ropes for example) so that (1) you increase the benefit of coming in because everyone else is there and (2) you enable people to take 5-day travel weekends, and by making Monday/Friday explicitly optional, it will hopefully serve to prevent teams pressuring their members into coming in on those days rather than T-Th.

This SP also confirmed that “nobody will be taking attendance” and that we “weren’t really that strict about face time even before COVID” but that they expect everyone to be there and hope it all works.

My take is that as long as you come in 1-2 days a week nobody will say anything, and if you never came in at all, you might get scolded but not fired. K&E cares about money above all else, so as long as you’re billing more than you cost (and are not hated by anyone who matters) you’re fine.

[Anonymous User]

Ballis emailed the share partners and said RTO is not optional for Tues-Thur.

[Anonymous User]

I'm contemplating whether I should enroll as I am currently admitted. I reached out to CSO and they said I can't have access until I am enrolled. This seems like important information, though.

Caveat, I don’t work at KE, nor did I attend UT, so I have no business answering your question. That said, there are a decent number (51) of UT grads listed online as associates in the three KE offices you mentioned. Reviewing their bios — check for honors, LR, etc. — should give you a rough sense of the credentials you’d need to land an offer. Not the hard cutoff you’re looking for, but better than nothing.

Seeing a 70/30 split in those with honors and without, with obviously 70% being with honors (top 35%). Thanks

Remember though that biglaw firms hire based solely on 1L grades. This honors/non-honors stuff is pretty meaningless when you realize you can game the system in 2L and 3L (take easy classes while the majority of the class is checked out).

[Anonymous User]

Ballis emailed the share partners and said RTO is not optional for Tues-Thur.

Will be interesting how this manifests. It seems there are different ideas about what this means from different SPs already (as relayed in this thread). And there surely are associates in the 100% WFH preference camp who are going to push back on the 3x in-office thing.

[Anonymous User]

Ballis emailed the share partners and said RTO is not optional for Tues-Thur.

Surprised at this, if true. There are many people who are vaccinated but for whom the vaccine was not effective because of underlying health conditions (immuno-compromised health that makes the vaccine ineffective, or a close family member who needs special considerations at home, etc.). Some people are eligible for Evusheld, but it's not widely available. This isn't a simple "get your shots, wait for the Covid rates to go down, and boom, RTO, everything is fine."

At the same time, the firm has said folks do not need to disclose personal health issues.

So where does that leave those folks who prefer not to RTO because of genuine health reasons but don't necessarily want to have to share those health reasons with every partner they may or may not get staffed on a case with, or every time an in-person meeting is scheduled for T W Th? Puts them in an uncomfortable position, at the very least. Would be better to just not make it mandatory and treat us like adults.

[Anonymous User]

Ballis emailed the share partners and said RTO is not optional for Tues-Thur.

Surprised at this, if true. There are many people who are vaccinated but for whom the vaccine was not effective because of underlying health conditions (immuno-compromised health that makes the vaccine ineffective, or a close family member who needs special considerations at home, etc.). Some people are eligible for Evusheld, but it's not widely available. This isn't a simple "get your shots, wait for the Covid rates to go down, and boom, RTO, everything is fine."

At the same time, the firm has said folks do not need to disclose personal health issues.

So where does that leave those folks who prefer not to RTO because of genuine health reasons but don't necessarily want to have to share those health reasons with every partner they may or may not get staffed on a case with, or every time an in-person meeting is scheduled for T W Th? Puts them in an uncomfortable position, at the very least. Would be better to just not make it mandatory and treat us like adults.

If it isn't mandatory then nobody will go in. Simple as that. Obviously if somebody has health problems then they can stay home.

[Anonymous User]

The point is not that "if you have a heath problem you can stay home", the point is that now, with this mandatory RTO, the onus is on you, personally, to have to explain to each and every partner/case team for in-office meetings that you have to stay home, and thereby disclose your health problems to some extent.

If they just designed it differently, we could avoid that problem. So no, it's not "simple as that." Stop thinking that folks with no real-life issues outside their work is the baseline status quo for designing office policy. There are realistic alternatives possible that still can prioritize profits for businesses (as we see from the tech sector, for example).

[Anonymous User]

Is Kirkland going to seriously enforce its RTO program? Any connected KE folks have thoughts on this. Thanks

In LA town hall, SPs said no one gives a shit if you come in if you don’t find it beneficial. Makes sense in LA where no one wants to spend 2 hours commuting. Can’t speak to other offices.

[Anonymous User]

The point is not that "if you have a heath problem you can stay home", the point is that now, with this mandatory RTO, the onus is on you, personally, to have to explain to each and every partner/case team for in-office meetings that you have to stay home, and thereby disclose your health problems to some extent.

If they just designed it differently, we could avoid that problem. So no, it's not "simple as that." Stop thinking that folks with no real-life issues outside their work is the baseline status quo for designing office policy. There are realistic alternatives possible that still can prioritize profits for businesses (as we see from the tech sector, for example).

I completely agree with you, but it seems covid safety is no longer a factor in the decision making here.

Fortunately, I bet most folks just won’t come in, so those with medical concerns won’t be singled out.

I can’t believe associates will be confronted unless there are other glaring issues (think: a first year who constantly turns down work). To do so would be really dumb for many reasons, and I don’t think firm leadership is really dumb.

[Anonymous User]

The point is not that "if you have a heath problem you can stay home", the point is that now, with this mandatory RTO, the onus is on you, personally, to have to explain to each and every partner/case team for in-office meetings that you have to stay home, and thereby disclose your health problems to some extent.

If they just designed it differently, we could avoid that problem. So no, it's not "simple as that." Stop thinking that folks with no real-life issues outside their work is the baseline status quo for designing office policy. There are realistic alternatives possible that still can prioritize profits for businesses (as we see from the tech sector, for example).

"Baseline status quo for designing office policy" lol are you a 2020 or 2021 grad? Back in the "old" days we'd come into the office 5 days a week. Even the folks with "real life issues outside their work" were able to do this. Lawyers had a lot more flexibility but staff was expected to come in every day. Staff who are paid significantly less than you and who often have to commute from far flung suburbs where housing is less expensive. Get over yourself and get back to the office - you aren't special.