Is it true that Kirkland's Chicago RX group only has ONE female SP? Forum

[Anonymous User]

This is not surprising at all. Women are underrepresented at the partner level in all corporate disciplines, but we are disproportionately underrepresented in certain specific corporate disciplines, most notably bankruptcy and finance. I’m a female associate in finance and we can’t get other female associates to join our group for various reasons, so I don’t really see this problem getting any better, at least at my firm. Tough to make more female partners if you don’t have any female associates.

are women more likely to be in litigation than in corporate compared to men? i'm curious if there's anything that shows that and if so, why that would be

Women are much less likely to make partner to begin with. Just looking at KE nalp info, associates are 41% female while partners are 23% female. And that's including NSP, ratio probably even worse for SP. NALP doesn't break it down by group, but the factors for why this happens are more likely to affect corporate.

https://www.nalpdirectory.com/employer_ ... hCondJSON=

why are those factors more likely to affect women in corporate?

[Anonymous User]

This is not surprising at all. Women are underrepresented at the partner level in all corporate disciplines, but we are disproportionately underrepresented in certain specific corporate disciplines, most notably bankruptcy and finance. I’m a female associate in finance and we can’t get other female associates to join our group for various reasons, so I don’t really see this problem getting any better, at least at my firm. Tough to make more female partners if you don’t have any female associates.

are women more likely to be in litigation than in corporate compared to men? i'm curious if there's anything that shows that and if so, why that would be

Women are much less likely to make partner to begin with. Just looking at KE nalp info, associates are 41% female while partners are 23% female. And that's including NSP, ratio probably even worse for SP. NALP doesn't break it down by group, but the factors for why this happens are more likely to affect corporate.

https://www.nalpdirectory.com/employer_ ... hCondJSON=

why are those factors more likely to affect women in corporate?

Up-or-out is an especially hard model on women who want kids, and generally corporate requires more hours than litigation.

[Anonymous User]

This is not surprising at all. Women are underrepresented at the partner level in all corporate disciplines, but we are disproportionately underrepresented in certain specific corporate disciplines, most notably bankruptcy and finance. I’m a female associate in finance and we can’t get other female associates to join our group for various reasons, so I don’t really see this problem getting any better, at least at my firm. Tough to make more female partners if you don’t have any female associates.

are women more likely to be in litigation than in corporate compared to men? i'm curious if there's anything that shows that and if so, why that would be

Women are much less likely to make partner to begin with. Just looking at KE nalp info, associates are 41% female while partners are 23% female. And that's including NSP, ratio probably even worse for SP. NALP doesn't break it down by group, but the factors for why this happens are more likely to affect corporate.

https://www.nalpdirectory.com/employer_ ... hCondJSON=

why are those factors more likely to affect women in corporate?

Up-or-out is an especially hard model on women who want kids, and generally corporate requires more hours than litigation.

this, plus more dudebro culture and promotion more reliant on bus dev

[jotarokujo]

This is not surprising at all. Women are underrepresented at the partner level in all corporate disciplines, but we are disproportionately underrepresented in certain specific corporate disciplines, most notably bankruptcy and finance. I’m a female associate in finance and we can’t get other female associates to join our group for various reasons, so I don’t really see this problem getting any better, at least at my firm. Tough to make more female partners if you don’t have any female associates.

are women more likely to be in litigation than in corporate compared to men? i'm curious if there's anything that shows that and if so, why that would be

Women are much less likely to make partner to begin with. Just looking at KE nalp info, associates are 41% female while partners are 23% female. And that's including NSP, ratio probably even worse for SP. NALP doesn't break it down by group, but the factors for why this happens are more likely to affect corporate.

https://www.nalpdirectory.com/employer_ ... hCondJSON=

why are those factors more likely to affect women in corporate?

Up-or-out is an especially hard model on women who want kids, and generally corporate requires more hours than litigation.

this, plus more dudebro culture and promotion more reliant on bus dev

got it that makes sense. i can see how more focus on things like brief writing equalize disadvantages compared to corporate

[temp69420]

This is not surprising at all. Women are underrepresented at the partner level in all corporate disciplines, but we are disproportionately underrepresented in certain specific corporate disciplines, most notably bankruptcy and finance. I’m a female associate in finance and we can’t get other female associates to join our group for various reasons, so I don’t really see this problem getting any better, at least at my firm. Tough to make more female partners if you don’t have any female associates.

are women more likely to be in litigation than in corporate compared to men? i'm curious if there's anything that shows that and if so, why that would be

Women are much less likely to make partner to begin with. Just looking at KE nalp info, associates are 41% female while partners are 23% female. And that's including NSP, ratio probably even worse for SP. NALP doesn't break it down by group, but the factors for why this happens are more likely to affect corporate.

https://www.nalpdirectory.com/employer_ ... hCondJSON=

why are those factors more likely to affect women in corporate?

Up-or-out is an especially hard model on women who want kids, and generally corporate requires more hours than litigation.

this, plus more dudebro culture and promotion more reliant on bus dev

got it that makes sense. i can see how more focus on things like brief writing equalize disadvantages compared to corporate

Nobody is making SP based on brief writing.

I'd suggest a few considerations:
1. Litigation hours are more predictable, which helps a lot with family. Not at all obvious to me that they're actually lower than corporate overall (except for the most recent year or two. and in 2008/9 corporate juniors were billing like 1000 hours; these things are cyclical).
2. Litigation clients are recently pushing pretty hard for diverse teams on pitches. PE clients don't work in the same way at all and I suspect don't care. So in litigation there's a very direct business case for diversity.
3. In-house litigation counsel seems to often be women.

But also there is momentum in these things. When junior women see senior women getting promoted to SP, it makes them more confident than they might have been otherwise, they speak up more, stick around longer, etc. It changes the culture. At the same time, it's not like the women somehow baby the associates -- they're just as much at fault as the men for making the place a sweatshop (and everybody is in the end responding to incentives anyway).

[jotarokujo]

Nobody is making SP based on brief writing.

I'd suggest a few considerations:
1. Litigation hours are more predictable, which helps a lot with family. Not at all obvious to me that they're actually lower than corporate overall (except for the most recent year or two. and in 2008/9 corporate juniors were billing like 1000 hours; these things are cyclical).
2. Litigation clients are recently pushing pretty hard for diverse teams on pitches. PE clients don't work in the same way at all and I suspect don't care. So in litigation there's a very direct business case for diversity.
3. In-house litigation counsel seems to often be women.

But also there is momentum in these things. When junior women see senior women getting promoted to SP, it makes them more confident than they might have been otherwise, they speak up more, stick around longer, etc. It changes the culture. At the same time, it's not like the women somehow baby the associates -- they're just as much at fault as the men for making the place a sweatshop (and everybody is in the end responding to incentives anyway).

im confused how litigation clients are different from corporate clients. aren't they largely the same in biglaw? i mean they are all mainly big companies, and the firms are interacting with the same counsel of those companies. do companies have people who work on litigation who care more about diversity?

[Anonymous User]

Nobody is making SP based on brief writing.

I'd suggest a few considerations:
1. Litigation hours are more predictable, which helps a lot with family. Not at all obvious to me that they're actually lower than corporate overall (except for the most recent year or two. and in 2008/9 corporate juniors were billing like 1000 hours; these things are cyclical).
2. Litigation clients are recently pushing pretty hard for diverse teams on pitches. PE clients don't work in the same way at all and I suspect don't care. So in litigation there's a very direct business case for diversity.
3. In-house litigation counsel seems to often be women.

But also there is momentum in these things. When junior women see senior women getting promoted to SP, it makes them more confident than they might have been otherwise, they speak up more, stick around longer, etc. It changes the culture. At the same time, it's not like the women somehow baby the associates -- they're just as much at fault as the men for making the place a sweatshop (and everybody is in the end responding to incentives anyway).

im confused how litigation clients are different from corporate clients. aren't they largely the same in biglaw? i mean they are all mainly big companies, and the firms are interacting with the same counsel of those companies. do companies have people who work on litigation who care more about diversity?

KE lit associate here. Some very large companies you have definitely heard of have diversity targets for the teams that work on their cases. In practice it essentially works as a cap on the number of straight white men who are permitted to be on a given team, since LGBTQ, racial minority, and women all count as "diverse" (for the majority of them; some of them are more granular).

Ironically, and perhaps predictably, one such client (who you have DEFINITELY heard of) has enough straight white men with the partner-level relationship that ALL of the associates on those matters must be diverse in order to stay under the target. So the diversity goal there is met by a burden entirely at the associate level.

I support these goals; I'm certainly not complaining (plenty of work to go around) but I find that last example funny.

[Anonymous User]

Nobody is making SP based on brief writing.

I'd suggest a few considerations:
1. Litigation hours are more predictable, which helps a lot with family. Not at all obvious to me that they're actually lower than corporate overall (except for the most recent year or two. and in 2008/9 corporate juniors were billing like 1000 hours; these things are cyclical).
2. Litigation clients are recently pushing pretty hard for diverse teams on pitches. PE clients don't work in the same way at all and I suspect don't care. So in litigation there's a very direct business case for diversity.
3. In-house litigation counsel seems to often be women.

But also there is momentum in these things. When junior women see senior women getting promoted to SP, it makes them more confident than they might have been otherwise, they speak up more, stick around longer, etc. It changes the culture. At the same time, it's not like the women somehow baby the associates -- they're just as much at fault as the men for making the place a sweatshop (and everybody is in the end responding to incentives anyway).

im confused how litigation clients are different from corporate clients. aren't they largely the same in biglaw? i mean they are all mainly big companies, and the firms are interacting with the same counsel of those companies. do companies have people who work on litigation who care more about diversity?

KE lit associate here. Some very large companies you have definitely heard of have diversity targets for the teams that work on their cases. In practice it essentially works as a cap on the number of straight white men who are permitted to be on a given team, since LGBTQ, racial minority, and women all count as "diverse" (for the majority of them; some of them are more granular).

Ironically, and perhaps predictably, one such client (who you have DEFINITELY heard of) has enough straight white men with the partner-level relationship that ALL of the associates on those matters must be diverse in order to stay under the target. So the diversity goal there is met by a burden entirely at the associate level.

I support these goals; I'm certainly not complaining (plenty of work to go around) but I find that last example funny.

Companies who institute these requirements are utterly insufferable and are usually overcompensating for their own shitty business practices.

We're J&J, our talc powder products caused cancer in thousands of people and we're going to do everything we can to avoid paying out on these claims, but hey at least we had a minority woman run our deals at the law firm we use!

We're Nestle, we suck the lifeblood out of poor countries in the Global South by literally privatizing water, but hey look, we love diversity!

Of course diversity in the legal profession is a good thing but this sort of stuff comes off as insincere virtue-signaling.

[Anonymous User]

Nobody is making SP based on brief writing.

I'd suggest a few considerations:
1. Litigation hours are more predictable, which helps a lot with family. Not at all obvious to me that they're actually lower than corporate overall (except for the most recent year or two. and in 2008/9 corporate juniors were billing like 1000 hours; these things are cyclical).
2. Litigation clients are recently pushing pretty hard for diverse teams on pitches. PE clients don't work in the same way at all and I suspect don't care. So in litigation there's a very direct business case for diversity.
3. In-house litigation counsel seems to often be women.

But also there is momentum in these things. When junior women see senior women getting promoted to SP, it makes them more confident than they might have been otherwise, they speak up more, stick around longer, etc. It changes the culture. At the same time, it's not like the women somehow baby the associates -- they're just as much at fault as the men for making the place a sweatshop (and everybody is in the end responding to incentives anyway).

im confused how litigation clients are different from corporate clients. aren't they largely the same in biglaw? i mean they are all mainly big companies, and the firms are interacting with the same counsel of those companies. do companies have people who work on litigation who care more about diversity?

KE lit associate here. Some very large companies you have definitely heard of have diversity targets for the teams that work on their cases. In practice it essentially works as a cap on the number of straight white men who are permitted to be on a given team, since LGBTQ, racial minority, and women all count as "diverse" (for the majority of them; some of them are more granular).

Ironically, and perhaps predictably, one such client (who you have DEFINITELY heard of) has enough straight white men with the partner-level relationship that ALL of the associates on those matters must be diverse in order to stay under the target. So the diversity goal there is met by a burden entirely at the associate level.

I support these goals; I'm certainly not complaining (plenty of work to go around) but I find that last example funny.

Companies who institute these requirements are utterly insufferable and are usually overcompensating for their own shitty business practices.

We're J&J, our talc powder products caused cancer in thousands of people and we're going to do everything we can to avoid paying out on these claims, but hey at least we had a minority woman run our deals at the law firm we use!

We're Nestle, we suck the lifeblood out of poor countries in the Global South by literally privatizing water, but hey look, we love diversity!

Of course diversity in the legal profession is a good thing but this sort of stuff comes off as insincere virtue-signaling.

It's easy to signal and not threatening to anyone who does the signaling. It's a bunch of old white men who are like great, we'll hire a bunch of non white men for roles that aren't mine. I mean, none of the c-suite people pushing these programs are giving up their spots for a diverse candidate. it's about creating new spots or promoting someone new.

Not to say diversity isn't a good goal, it's just very easy with extremely low costs to those who are implementing it.

[temp69420]

Nobody is making SP based on brief writing.

I'd suggest a few considerations:
1. Litigation hours are more predictable, which helps a lot with family. Not at all obvious to me that they're actually lower than corporate overall (except for the most recent year or two. and in 2008/9 corporate juniors were billing like 1000 hours; these things are cyclical).
2. Litigation clients are recently pushing pretty hard for diverse teams on pitches. PE clients don't work in the same way at all and I suspect don't care. So in litigation there's a very direct business case for diversity.
3. In-house litigation counsel seems to often be women.

But also there is momentum in these things. When junior women see senior women getting promoted to SP, it makes them more confident than they might have been otherwise, they speak up more, stick around longer, etc. It changes the culture. At the same time, it's not like the women somehow baby the associates -- they're just as much at fault as the men for making the place a sweatshop (and everybody is in the end responding to incentives anyway).

im confused how litigation clients are different from corporate clients. aren't they largely the same in biglaw? i mean they are all mainly big companies, and the firms are interacting with the same counsel of those companies. do companies have people who work on litigation who care more about diversity?

K&E's big corporate clients are PE funds. Their litigation clients are large corporations. Very, very different.