Kirkland "Mid-Year Review" Process Forum

[Joachim2017]

The rating system sounds like another indicative feature of KE's desire to part ways from the softer, less quantitative traditional big law set up (in terms of the workplace), and towards a more numbers-driven business-oriented large scale org like BCG or McKinsey. It's certainly a pioneer right now. It will be curious how KE fares in all this 10 years from now.

[The Lsat Airbender]

It's certainly a pioneer right now. It will be curious how KE fares in all this 10 years from now.

This is what people were saying 10 years ago and it's mostly been smooth sailing for Kirkland

[Anonymous User]

OP, do you mind sharing your year? I'm also at K&E and also had this talk today during my review.

[Anonymous User]

OP, do you mind sharing your year? I'm also at K&E and also had this talk today during my review.

Ah I'm sorry to hear that. I would prefer not to give my year, as I worry that that information + the still-getting-a-3 situation might make me identifiable. I doubt they read these boards, but I would find nothing shocking.

If you are able to post non-anonymously, I'll PM you.

[Ultramar vistas]

The rating system sounds like another indicative feature of KE's desire to part ways from the softer, less quantitative traditional big law set up (in terms of the workplace), and towards a more numbers-driven business-oriented large scale org like BCG or McKinsey. It's certainly a pioneer right now. It will be curious how KE fares in all this 10 years from now.

No, it’s not. It’s how they’ve done it since they were a lit heavy shop with a Chicago presence and no one knew much about them. It’s also pretty much the opposite of quantitative (and not markedly different to other law firm rating systems). Just because they use a number doesn’t mean it’s some kind of consulting-esque system.

You get a 3 until they trust you to run deals in the midlevel role, then you get a 2. When they think you are ready to take a partner level role, you get a 1.

If you get a 4, you should probs leave. If you get a 5, you should definitely leave.

That’s it. If they used phrases to describe that, or just relied on promotions to “senior associate” to convey the same message, no one would think it’s mysterious or hard to understand.

You get all the feedback you want, you just don’t get to keep a copy.

[Anonymous User]

The rating system sounds like another indicative feature of KE's desire to part ways from the softer, less quantitative traditional big law set up (in terms of the workplace), and towards a more numbers-driven business-oriented large scale org like BCG or McKinsey. It's certainly a pioneer right now. It will be curious how KE fares in all this 10 years from now.

As the other KE reply said, I don’t think this is really true, and this thread is evidence of that. OP got a 3 and might be getting pushed out. I got a 3 as an average associate with above average hours. One of my friends is clearly the rock star/future share partner in our class (to the extent you can tell at all this early) and they got a 3 as well. For all junior associates at least, there is no quantitative feedback. And even as you move into midlevel, the 2/3/4 distinction is really not that useful. If you’re a 2 or a 4, there are “soft” ways that you’ll know anyway.

[basketofbread]

The rating system sounds like another indicative feature of KE's desire to part ways from the softer, less quantitative traditional big law set up (in terms of the workplace), and towards a more numbers-driven business-oriented large scale org like BCG or McKinsey. It's certainly a pioneer right now. It will be curious how KE fares in all this 10 years from now.

Thank god big law is going to stop coddling its lazy associates

[Joachim2017]

The rating system sounds like another indicative feature of KE's desire to part ways from the softer, less quantitative traditional big law set up (in terms of the workplace), and towards a more numbers-driven business-oriented large scale org like BCG or McKinsey. It's certainly a pioneer right now. It will be curious how KE fares in all this 10 years from now.

Thank god big law is going to stop coddling its lazy associates

Assigning a number to a person and having that number stand in for whatever it is you want to do to/with that person is actually a lazy way of management unless there's some meaningful and individualized substance behind the number. Otherwise, it's pretext dressed up as rigor that allows the firm to coddle the partners that should be engaging in actual business management. If the goal is instead to streamline the process and make things hyper efficient, that's fine, but then the original point stands.

To the other poster who said that if they used phrases it would be no less opaque than numbers, that's not true because phrases have at least some basic meaning we can attach to them as a backstop. If you're an associate you can point to a phrase, even a concise one, as something to track against the firm. Just look at the ongoing Jones Day litigation and questions about process when it comes to black box decision-making. And if your response is "there IS a meaning behind each number" then, again, the original point stands. (Which was not necessarily some damning attack on KE).

[Anonymous User]

The rating system sounds like another indicative feature of KE's desire to part ways from the softer, less quantitative traditional big law set up (in terms of the workplace), and towards a more numbers-driven business-oriented large scale org like BCG or McKinsey. It's certainly a pioneer right now. It will be curious how KE fares in all this 10 years from now.

Thank god big law is going to stop coddling its lazy associates

Assigning a number to a person and having that number stand in for whatever it is you want to do to/with that person is actually a lazy way of management unless there's some meaningful and individualized substance behind the number. Otherwise, it's pretext dressed up as rigor that allows the firm to coddle the partners that should be engaging in actual business management. If the goal is instead to streamline the process and make things hyper efficient, that's fine, but then the original point stands.

To the other poster who said that if they used phrases it would be no less opaque than numbers, that's not true because phrases have at least some basic meaning we can attach to them as a backstop. If you're an associate you can point to a phrase, even a concise one, as something to track against the firm. Just look at the ongoing Jones Day litigation and questions about process when it comes to black box decision-making. And if your response is "there IS a meaning behind each number" then, again, the original point stands. (Which was not necessarily some damning attack on KE).

This sentence is schizophrenic. You get meaningful feedback during your review - you get told what you're doing well, what you need to improve and what the partners would like to see from you in the coming year. At the end of the review they tell you what your number is, which as a senior associate really tells you whether you're making nonequity or not, and the number impacts bonuses. I can't imagine wtf else they do at other firms that's somehow more engaging and useful to one's professional development.

Based on the review processes at other v10 firms as explained to me from peers/friends, the review is at least as transparent as at other shops, so this bizarre thought that it's somehow a "lazy" way of management is hard to address.

[Leif Erikson]

I'm a Kirkland lit associate who is not doing so hot -- I learned that I have been "selected for a mid-year review." My numerical rating was a 3. I'm wondering if any other anonymous folks have been through or know much about this. Two questions in particular:

(1) Timing: the partners who let me know seemed unclear as to how the mid-year review process actually works. Specifically -- anyone know when these reviews actually happen? I'm wondering if it's December, January, or later. From just my personal rumor mill, I've heard that they can happen anywhere between January or March, but I'm just curious if anyone else knows more about how much time I might have.

(2) Bonuses: Do people slotted for mid-year reviews usually get these? I hope I still get one, but I'm not sure. If people who get 3s but who are slotted for mid-year reviews sometimes get left out, then obviously I should bail rather than even attempt to stick this out.

Thanks all. My anonymous heart appreciates it.

Not much of substance to add here, OP, but I just wanted to say that I'm sorry that you're having a stressful time at work. I understand the anxiety, worry, and self-doubt a less-than-stellar review can have on your wellbeing. Feel free to reach out if you need someone to talk to: you have people (albeit, randos on the Internet, but people!) who are thinking of you and hoping for the best!

[Anonymous User]

Another mid level KE associate here, who got a 3 but was not asked for a mid year review. I was a lateral, so this was my first review year. I know a 3 essentially means you’re on par, but does it also mean you are below if you want to make NSP? And also, if you billed between 2500-2600 hours, generally what has the multiple been for others in years back come bonus time?

Apologies for hijacking this thread but the KE review process is pretty foreign to me and does not seem to be explained well.. and the numerical rating thing makes me nervous.

[Anonymous User]

Another mid level KE associate here, who got a 3 but was not asked for a mid year review. I was a lateral, so this was my first review year. I know a 3 essentially means you’re on par, but does it also mean you are below if you want to make NSP? And also, if you billed between 2500-2600 hours, generally what has the multiple been for others in years back come bonus time?

Apologies for hijacking this thread but the KE review process is pretty foreign to me and does not seem to be explained well.. and the numerical rating thing makes me nervous.

If it’s your first review, and the comments were good, I wouldn’t worry about getting a 3. This also may vary by practice group, but “making NSP” is really not much of a funnel any more than the other midlevel years are. There’s just general attrition and a light amount of pushing people out from years 2-8 or so, and then people get a clear picture if they have an actual SP shot or if they should leave.

Also last year your hours were probably in a 1.4x to 1.5x range, though in recent years they would have exceeded 1.5x.

[Anonymous User]

Has there been cases where top performers got a mid year review? Or is it just for people to get the “talk”?

[Anonymous User]

This is why KE will always remain a second fiddle to the Costco Kirkland

[Anonymous User]

Has there been cases where top performers got a mid year review? Or is it just for people to get the “talk”?

My impression was that it is always for trouble children, but I could be wrong. I could see some special case where some non-trouble associate gets a mid-year review, whether by request by that person or as a result of some kind of pre-arranged deal with a lateral where they might get something contingent on being in good standing mid-year.

What I find interesting about your question is that I think there are plenty of ppl at kirkland who have a lack of self awareness such that they might not think they are a trouble child even when they clearly are. But if a person doesn't have enough self awareness to figure out if they are either (a) a trouble child or (b) a top performer, that person is going to have problems in life that extend beyond kirkland. If you are a top performer at kirkland, you and everyone else will know, generally (not saying being a top performer is something to aspire to, plenty of ppl strategically try not to be a top performer and for good reason).

[Anonymous User]

LOL, the question is not about whether someone is a top performer or a trouble child. It’s about how the review has been used in the past. Is it always in May?

[Anonymous User]

LOL, the question is not about whether someone is a top performer or a trouble child. It’s about how the review has been used in the past. Is it always in May?

I thought they were typically in April, as the annual reviews for all associates are in October and the lower performers are told that they’ll need to sit for another review in six months instead of waiting for the next October like normal.