Bancroft joins K&E Forum

WeeBey · Post by **WeeBey** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:15 pm

umichman wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:
MCFC wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:Didn't Clement quite intentionally leave a big firm to go to a boutique? Not to mention he could have gone by himself to any number of big firms at any time. Wonder what Kirkland did to make this attractive.
I only casually follow these things but wasn't the SSM fight involved in his decision to leave?
Yup, my recollection is basically that he took the case for the House GOP, then King & Spalding wanted to drop it after getting a sense of the PR consequences, and Clement made his dissatisfaction very public. His point about not dropping a client you already have due to the way the political winds are blowing is well taken, but I bet a lot of firms are not that interested in adding a litany of appeals about Republican pet causes to their marketing materials.
Since kirkland offered "lower" profile but still huge partners 8-9m, my guess is they offered him north of 10 guaranteed. http://abovethelaw.com/2014/12/who-is-b ... llion-man/

lol

dixiecupdrinking · Post by **dixiecupdrinking** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:18 pm

Well when you get the chance to pay $10 million/year to defend failed legislation and make quixotic attacks on progressive policies, you just have to take it. That basically pays for itself.

Also love the killer irony of a famously "free-market" firm and a leading conservative attorney agreeing that he should be paid a huge guarantee regardless of his personal performance.

lawlorbust · Post by **lawlorbust** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:39 pm

dixiecupdrinking wrote:Well when you get the chance to pay $10 million/year to defend failed legislation and make quixotic attacks on progressive policies, you just have to take it. That basically pays for itself.

Also love the killer irony of a famously "free-market" firm and a leading conservative attorney agreeing that he should be paid a huge guarantee regardless of his personal performance.

Are you a retard or something? Did you think that appellate litigation is ever a major law firm's revenue center?

deadpanic · Post by **deadpanic** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:41 pm

dixiecupdrinking wrote:Didn't Clement quite intentionally leave a big firm to go to a boutique? Not to mention he could have gone by himself to any number of big firms at any time. Wonder what Kirkland did to make this attractive.

Probably didn't have any real impact, but Clement was an associate at K&E DC I believe, so he has past ties there.

rpupkin · Post by **rpupkin** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:44 pm

deadpanic wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:Didn't Clement quite intentionally leave a big firm to go to a boutique? Not to mention he could have gone by himself to any number of big firms at any time. Wonder what Kirkland did to make this attractive.
Probably didn't have any real impact, but Clement was an associate at K&E DC I believe, so he has past ties there.

I had heard that the partnership was divided over whether to bring Clement on board as a partner, but then the hiring partner remembered that Clement had sent thank-you notes when he interviewed as an associate. Once he reminded the partners of that fact, all dissent vanished.

dixiecupdrinking · Post by **dixiecupdrinking** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:05 pm

lawlorbust wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:Well when you get the chance to pay $10 million/year to defend failed legislation and make quixotic attacks on progressive policies, you just have to take it. That basically pays for itself.

Also love the killer irony of a famously "free-market" firm and a leading conservative attorney agreeing that he should be paid a huge guarantee regardless of his personal performance.
Are you a retard or something? Did you think that appellate litigation is ever a major law firm's revenue center?

Bro, you seem really mad.

FSK · Post by **FSK** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:14 pm

dixiecupdrinking wrote:
lawlorbust wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:Well when you get the chance to pay $10 million/year to defend failed legislation and make quixotic attacks on progressive policies, you just have to take it. That basically pays for itself.

Also love the killer irony of a famously "free-market" firm and a leading conservative attorney agreeing that he should be paid a huge guarantee regardless of his personal performance.
Are you a retard or something? Did you think that appellate litigation is ever a major law firm's revenue center?
Bro, you seem really mad.

Also when your clients are basically the Koch brothers maybe appelate does bring in $$

run26.2 · Post by **run26.2** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:17 pm

dixiecupdrinking wrote:
lawlorbust wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:Well when you get the chance to pay $10 million/year to defend failed legislation and make quixotic attacks on progressive policies, you just have to take it. That basically pays for itself.

Also love the killer irony of a famously "free-market" firm and a leading conservative attorney agreeing that he should be paid a huge guarantee regardless of his personal performance.
Are you a retard or something? Did you think that appellate litigation is ever a major law firm's revenue center?
Bro, you seem really mad.

Wasn't phrased tactfully, but there is no way he's getting 10 million.

dixiecupdrinking · Post by **dixiecupdrinking** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:24 pm

I took it the opposite way--Clement, like other preftigious appellate guys, is gonna get paid a lot more money than he brings in. Which is probably true. But yes, probably also not to the tune of $10 million. Anyway, I wish him and Kirkland the best and hope they make beautiful neocon headlines together.

Bancroft joins K&E Forum

Re: Bancroft joins K&E

Re: Bancroft joins K&E

Re: Bancroft joins K&E

Re: Bancroft joins K&E

Re: Bancroft joins K&E

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: Bancroft joins K&E

Re: Bancroft joins K&E

Re: Bancroft joins K&E

Re: Bancroft joins K&E

Register for access!