Just how brutal is Kirkland? Forum

[k_moreno]

I’ve heard that the competitiveness and insane pay disparities are what make Kirkland so brutal. The income partner thread cites a non-equity partner at Kirkland making $400k which is less than a senior associate at a lockstep firm. The biggest rainmakers are making 8 figures. I’ve worked in big law NYC for six years and I would not want to work in that kind of environment.

NSPs make lockstep at minimum. Check the data behind that thread - I did. It’s coming from self-reported financials from people going into the Trump administration, and required them to cite their income that year. Did not appear to include bonus in their self reporting, because I can absolutely 100% guarantee you right now that no NSP at Kirkland is making less than lockstep base + bonus, which is more than $400k.

If Kirkland has an especially bad culture (it doesn’t), it has no more to do with pay disparities than that factor has to do with poor culture across biglaw generally these days because FYI, the majority of firms now have a two tier system. Kind of bored of hearing that K&E’s system is special or different because that hasn’t been the case for a decade now.

If there’s a difference in approaches, it’s that K&E’s system is transparent (7th year associates are NSPs, and the process to get equity is as difficult as it is to get a $2.2m salary at any other job), and other firms still have an element of black box to getting even NSP. We can debate the merits of either approach but not a single 7th or 8th year is mad about not making millions of dollars because that’s not in the cards anywhere; and it’s never been in the cards. Are there some hardworking 10th year NSPs that deserve equity but aren’t getting it, and are mad about that? No doubt, that is the story of biglaw for time immemorial, but if you think that directly contributes to poor culture then you have a weird understanding of office culture generally.

This is all precisely correct.

That said, the pay disparities -- i.e. a factor of 9 between the bottom and top of the equity partnership, let alone the gap between equity partners and NSPs and associates -- are striking.

[Wearthewildthingsr]

Anyone else getting real American psycho vibes from the dude who keeps talking about K&E as a competitive slaughterhouse?

"Let's see Paul Allen's card... Look at that subtle colouring. The tasteful thickness. Oh my God. It even has a watermark."

[Anonymous User]

Anyone else getting real American psycho vibes from the dude who keeps talking about K&E as a competitive slaughterhouse?

"Let's see Paul Allen's card... Look at that subtle colouring. The tasteful thickness. Oh my God. It even has a watermark."

To be fair, that describes like 25% of the associates there lol

[unlicensedpotato]

I’ve heard that the competitiveness and insane pay disparities are what make Kirkland so brutal. The income partner thread cites a non-equity partner at Kirkland making $400k which is less than a senior associate at a lockstep firm. The biggest rainmakers are making 8 figures. I’ve worked in big law NYC for six years and I would not want to work in that kind of environment.

I see this was already covered and the $400k figure is incorrect but, just for clarity, you make non-equity partner at Kirkland as a 7th year. I have colleagues who intend to stay that long because they view the title as more portable on the in-house market than "Senior Associate" from their class peers at other firms would be. Externally, Kirkland doesn't distinguish between non-equity partner and the big ones; there are C/O 2015s who are a few months away from having the same external title as the very most senior rainmakers at the firm. And they like that.

Except for the "P.C." designation, which should make it obvious to anyone who actually works in the legal industry.

[Anonymous User]

I’ve heard that the competitiveness and insane pay disparities are what make Kirkland so brutal. The income partner thread cites a non-equity partner at Kirkland making $400k which is less than a senior associate at a lockstep firm. The biggest rainmakers are making 8 figures. I’ve worked in big law NYC for six years and I would not want to work in that kind of environment.

I see this was already covered and the $400k figure is incorrect but, just for clarity, you make non-equity partner at Kirkland as a 7th year. I have colleagues who intend to stay that long because they view the title as more portable on the in-house market than "Senior Associate" from their class peers at other firms would be. Externally, Kirkland doesn't distinguish between non-equity partner and the big ones; there are C/O 2015s who are a few months away from having the same external title as the very most senior rainmakers at the firm. And they like that.

Except for the "P.C." designation, which should make it obvious to anyone who actually works in the legal industry.

Plenty of Kirkland SPs don’t use P.C. at least in firm profiles etc. although your point is taken that it is obvious to anyone who cares to know whether a partner is an NSP or an SP. But apparently we would be surprised by some in-house hiring teams about their awareness of that point.

[unlicensedpotato]

I’ve heard that the competitiveness and insane pay disparities are what make Kirkland so brutal. The income partner thread cites a non-equity partner at Kirkland making $400k which is less than a senior associate at a lockstep firm. The biggest rainmakers are making 8 figures. I’ve worked in big law NYC for six years and I would not want to work in that kind of environment.

I see this was already covered and the $400k figure is incorrect but, just for clarity, you make non-equity partner at Kirkland as a 7th year. I have colleagues who intend to stay that long because they view the title as more portable on the in-house market than "Senior Associate" from their class peers at other firms would be. Externally, Kirkland doesn't distinguish between non-equity partner and the big ones; there are C/O 2015s who are a few months away from having the same external title as the very most senior rainmakers at the firm. And they like that.

Except for the "P.C." designation, which should make it obvious to anyone who actually works in the legal industry.

Plenty of Kirkland SPs don’t use P.C. at least in firm profiles etc. although your point is taken that it is obvious to anyone who cares to know whether a partner is an NSP or an SP. But apparently we would be surprised by some in-house hiring teams about their awareness of that point.

Haha that's probably true. That's interesting to know though that lots of SPs don't use it; I had sort of assumed they all chose to do so or maybe had to under some law (because a professional corporation, not the individual, is actually the "partner" assuming they're in fact using one).

[LBJ's Hair]

I see this was already covered and the $400k figure is incorrect but, just for clarity, you make non-equity partner at Kirkland as a 7th year. I have colleagues who intend to stay that long because they view the title as more portable on the in-house market than "Senior Associate" from their class peers at other firms would be. Externally, Kirkland doesn't distinguish between non-equity partner and the big ones; there are C/O 2015s who are a few months away from having the same external title as the very most senior rainmakers at the firm. And they like that.

The title is cool but I'd think it's fairly clear to the lawyer reading your resume that you don't have shares if you're applying for a $300K in-house job?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

You need to make 15 calls to even staff a 1-3rd year associate on a deal right now, so lol at the notion that there is some sort of cutthroat competition among associates for work.

I mean, to be fair, if every associate is drowning/at their breaking point already, it doesn't mean that they aren't necessarily more competitive than similarly situated associates at other firms.

Not that that definitely is or definitely is not the case, but K&E associates, everyone would agree, seem to tolerate a lot of hours before tapping out.

But of course, there can't be "competition" in a broad sense if there's just more work than associates can collectively manage.

[Anonymous User]

Is there any data on median/average billables compared to other shops?

[Anonymous User]

Is there any data on median/average billables compared to other shops?

KE gives us an annual presentation with hours firm- and office-wide (maybe segmented by practice group, too, although I'm not sure) but I have always been very skeptical of them, because they are much lower than I think is accurate. The median hour figures are always <2000. I expect they include things like associates on parental leave (without crediting those hours) and do not include business development, required trainings, or perhaps pro bono hours either.

Since the purpose of the presentation is to make us feel good about our bonuses, and about morale generally, the firm has an incentive for internal reasons to try to get that figure as low as possible.

[Anonymous User]

Is there any data on median/average billables compared to other shops?

KE gives us an annual presentation with hours firm- and office-wide (maybe segmented by practice group, too, although I'm not sure) but I have always been very skeptical of them, because they are much lower than I think is accurate. The median hour figures are always <2000. I expect they include things like associates on parental leave (without crediting those hours) and do not include business development, required trainings, or perhaps pro bono hours either.

Since the purpose of the presentation is to make us feel good about our bonuses, and about morale generally, the firm has an incentive for internal reasons to try to get that figure as low as possible.

How many hours do you personally bill in a typical year?

[Anonymous User]

As someone who left KE, it sucked. It's only good if you're a workaholic or a share partner. The culture is toxic and about as intense as it gets. Not sure you can even say the place has a culture since it's all laterals? Let me repeat this: if you are a first year, go somewhere else... And then lateral in if you want a signing bonus. There's a reason they have to pay people to join. New firm I'm at some people get to play golf once a week. At KE, I hadn't been able to use my new clubs after I bought them and very few associates I knew had time to do anything fun. No one worked out. It's not a healthy place and as a junior it really sucks except for the name on the resume. Don't fall for the tls bullshit.

[Anonymous User]

As someone who left KE, it sucked. It's only good if you're a workaholic or a share partner. The culture is toxic and about as intense as it gets. Not sure you can even say the place has a culture since it's all laterals? Let me repeat this: if you are a first year, go somewhere else... And then lateral in if you want a signing bonus. There's a reason they have to pay people to join. New firm I'm at some people get to play golf once a week. At KE, I hadn't been able to use my new clubs after I bought them and very few associates I knew had time to do anything fun. No one worked out. It's not a healthy place and as a junior it really sucks except for the name on the resume. Don't fall for the tls bullshit.

Idk man, everyone I talked to seemed to suggest they liked their experience (even people who made lateral moves to other firms). Are the hours really that much worse than any other V10/V20? How many hours did you usually bill at K&E (and which practice were you in, if you don't mind me asking)?

[Anonymous User]

Different anon but a current K&E midlevel in the transactional space. I'll bill around 2900 for the billable year. I get the sense that is high, but not "top biller" high by any means. It is a culture that 100% relies on associates to (in busy times, frequently) push back against senior attorneys who have work to assign and that is very hard for some people, me included. I don't say this negatively, but I do think this culture is a little more conducive to people that are naturally a bit more Machiavellian or at least a bit more "me first" when it comes to boundaries and their time.

As everyone else has said, there are pros and cons anywhere and K&E is no different. I wouldn't come here for the comp bump (at least IMO, it isn't close to worth it compared to the excess hours) but you will get to work on cool deals, if you're good, you'll be given the opportunity to take on every bit as much responsibility as you want and can handle, you will have pretty good exit opportunities, and probably most importantly, if you're the type of person who learns best by being dropped in a pool where your toes can almost touch but can't quite, I genuinely believe you'll learn more here in a shorter period of time than you will at most other firms.

The cons are obviously the hours and that you do have to be willing to piss people off from time to time (and during busy times, frequently) if you want to maintain boundaries. High turnover is a con; I can't tell you how many people I've enjoyed working with who've bolted recently. And the last big one, and this is also something that is exacerbated during busy times, I don't always feel like there is quite enough partner or experienced attorney oversight over what midlevels are doing and I worry sometimes about the mistakes I am making that I do not know I'm making.

I've been here for a few years now and would say I neither drink the kool-aid nor think the culture is unusually toxic. I am going to work hard over the course of the next year to bill fewer hours, come what may, but if I am unable to drop back into the 2200-2500 range (which is a range I think people coming into the transactional space at Kirkland should expect to live in), then I'll consider whether it is the right time to move on.

[Anonymous User]

As someone who left KE, it sucked. It's only good if you're a workaholic or a share partner. The culture is toxic and about as intense as it gets. Not sure you can even say the place has a culture since it's all laterals? Let me repeat this: if you are a first year, go somewhere else... And then lateral in if you want a signing bonus. There's a reason they have to pay people to join. New firm I'm at some people get to play golf once a week. At KE, I hadn't been able to use my new clubs after I bought them and very few associates I knew had time to do anything fun. No one worked out. It's not a healthy place and as a junior it really sucks except for the name on the resume. Don't fall for the tls bullshit.

Idk man, everyone I talked to seemed to suggest they liked their experience (even people who made lateral moves to other firms). Are the hours really that much worse than any other V10/V20? How many hours did you usually bill at K&E (and which practice were you in, if you don't mind me asking)?

yeah I’m going to KE, but I did a ton of networking and it’s really not much different than the rest of the V10/V20 transactional shops based on what I heard. The most important thing anywhere seems to be practice group and partners you work for - at KE, though, you do need to be smart about declining work and finding the right people.

the hours were on par with other firms in the same practice groups - you’re not going to have a ton of time at STB M&A either.

[Anonymous User]

Lol I was just like you guys. Arguing on tls about a firm I hadn't even joined yet. My ego had already become so attached to the new job. You'll join, learn your lesson if you're not a wierdo with no hobbies and leave within 3 years like 95 percent of others

[Anonymous User]

Is there any data on median/average billables compared to other shops?

KE gives us an annual presentation with hours firm- and office-wide (maybe segmented by practice group, too, although I'm not sure) but I have always been very skeptical of them, because they are much lower than I think is accurate. The median hour figures are always <2000. I expect they include things like associates on parental leave (without crediting those hours) and do not include business development, required trainings, or perhaps pro bono hours either.

Since the purpose of the presentation is to make us feel good about our bonuses, and about morale generally, the firm has an incentive for internal reasons to try to get that figure as low as possible.

Our firm also does this and average hours likewise seem low. For us, it is because the numbers include partners, which I understand bill about 500 hours less per year on average than associates.

Sure, there are junior partners billing on par or more than associates but I think there are enough senior partners who spend more time on BD and bring down the overall billable hour averages.

[Anonymous User]

I see this was already covered and the $400k figure is incorrect but, just for clarity, you make non-equity partner at Kirkland as a 7th year. I have colleagues who intend to stay that long because they view the title as more portable on the in-house market than "Senior Associate" from their class peers at other firms would be. Externally, Kirkland doesn't distinguish between non-equity partner and the big ones; there are C/O 2015s who are a few months away from having the same external title as the very most senior rainmakers at the firm. And they like that.

The title is cool but I'd think it's fairly clear to the lawyer reading your resume that you don't have shares if you're applying for a $300K in-house job?

It's not clear at all. Many of the people interviewing me for in-house roles thought that I made millions of dollars a year, and I had to explain to them that it was not the case.

[Anonymous User]

Lol I was just like you guys. Arguing on tls about a firm I hadn't even joined yet. My ego had already become so attached to the new job. You'll join, learn your lesson if you're not a wierdo with no hobbies and leave within 3 years like 95 percent of others

one of the anons here going to KE. no doubt you’re right, my comment was only pointing out that this isn’t an experience unique to KE, I personally see all of these firms as being pretty much the same. I find the talk about how shitty/competitive/brutal the firm is comes 95% from people who never worked at the firm.

[Elston Gunn]

I see this was already covered and the $400k figure is incorrect but, just for clarity, you make non-equity partner at Kirkland as a 7th year. I have colleagues who intend to stay that long because they view the title as more portable on the in-house market than "Senior Associate" from their class peers at other firms would be. Externally, Kirkland doesn't distinguish between non-equity partner and the big ones; there are C/O 2015s who are a few months away from having the same external title as the very most senior rainmakers at the firm. And they like that.

The title is cool but I'd think it's fairly clear to the lawyer reading your resume that you don't have shares if you're applying for a $300K in-house job?

If anything I’d be worried that the partner title might hurt you with an in-house recruiter that doesn’t understand what it means, since they might assume you’re overqualified and will be too expensive. But I’m sure Kirkland NSPs do fine, regardless.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

A good thing to look into is how many people lateral to Kirkland and then with a month or two choose to lateral back to their original firm. This definitely happens and it’s good evidence against the perspective that all NYC big law firms are similar.

[Anonymous User]

Different anon but a current K&E midlevel in the transactional space. I'll bill around 2900 for the billable year. I get the sense that is high, but not "top biller" high by any means. It is a culture that 100% relies on associates to (in busy times, frequently) push back against senior attorneys who have work to assign and that is very hard for some people, me included. I don't say this negatively, but I do think this culture is a little more conducive to people that are naturally a bit more Machiavellian or at least a bit more "me first" when it comes to boundaries and their time.

As everyone else has said, there are pros and cons anywhere and K&E is no different. I wouldn't come here for the comp bump (at least IMO, it isn't close to worth it compared to the excess hours) but you will get to work on cool deals, if you're good, you'll be given the opportunity to take on every bit as much responsibility as you want and can handle, you will have pretty good exit opportunities, and probably most importantly, if you're the type of person who learns best by being dropped in a pool where your toes can almost touch but can't quite, I genuinely believe you'll learn more here in a shorter period of time than you will at most other firms.

The cons are obviously the hours and that you do have to be willing to piss people off from time to time (and during busy times, frequently) if you want to maintain boundaries. High turnover is a con; I can't tell you how many people I've enjoyed working with who've bolted recently. And the last big one, and this is also something that is exacerbated during busy times, I don't always feel like there is quite enough partner or experienced attorney oversight over what midlevels are doing and I worry sometimes about the mistakes I am making that I do not know I'm making.

I've been here for a few years now and would say I neither drink the kool-aid nor think the culture is unusually toxic. I am going to work hard over the course of the next year to bill fewer hours, come what may, but if I am unable to drop back into the 2200-2500 range (which is a range I think people coming into the transactional space at Kirkland should expect to live in), then I'll consider whether it is the right time to move on.

Anon who was shit talking KE earlier in the thread. Completely agree with all this.
That's one reason I left. Just got sick of the turnover. You find a mentor and then they leave.

[Anonymous User]

Is there any data on median/average billables compared to other shops?

KE gives us an annual presentation with hours firm- and office-wide (maybe segmented by practice group, too, although I'm not sure) but I have always been very skeptical of them, because they are much lower than I think is accurate. The median hour figures are always <2000. I expect they include things like associates on parental leave (without crediting those hours) and do not include business development, required trainings, or perhaps pro bono hours either.

Since the purpose of the presentation is to make us feel good about our bonuses, and about morale generally, the firm has an incentive for internal reasons to try to get that figure as low as possible.

How many hours do you personally bill in a typical year?

I am the person you quoted, and I'm a midlevel litigation associate. My last three years have been 1800, 2400, and 2000. I am pretty certain for the most recent year that my hours were below median for my class year/group/office.

[Anonymous User]

Is there any data on median/average billables compared to other shops?

KE gives us an annual presentation with hours firm- and office-wide (maybe segmented by practice group, too, although I'm not sure) but I have always been very skeptical of them, because they are much lower than I think is accurate. The median hour figures are always <2000. I expect they include things like associates on parental leave (without crediting those hours) and do not include business development, required trainings, or perhaps pro bono hours either.

Since the purpose of the presentation is to make us feel good about our bonuses, and about morale generally, the firm has an incentive for internal reasons to try to get that figure as low as possible.

How many hours do you personally bill in a typical year?

I am the person you quoted, and I'm a midlevel litigation associate. My last three years have been 1800, 2400, and 2000. I am pretty certain for the most recent year that my hours were below median for my class year/group/office.

Lit is more chill than corporate in every instance.

[Anonymous User]

Is there any data on median/average billables compared to other shops?

KE gives us an annual presentation with hours firm- and office-wide (maybe segmented by practice group, too, although I'm not sure) but I have always been very skeptical of them, because they are much lower than I think is accurate. The median hour figures are always <2000. I expect they include things like associates on parental leave (without crediting those hours) and do not include business development, required trainings, or perhaps pro bono hours either.

Since the purpose of the presentation is to make us feel good about our bonuses, and about morale generally, the firm has an incentive for internal reasons to try to get that figure as low as possible.

How many hours do you personally bill in a typical year?

I am the person you quoted, and I'm a midlevel litigation associate. My last three years have been 1800, 2400, and 2000. I am pretty certain for the most recent year that my hours were below median for my class year/group/office.

Lit is more chill than corporate in every instance.

This is interesting. How much more chill? Any insight into what life there is like as a junior or midlevel litigation associate?