So when's the K&E culling? Forum

[Anonymous User]

What kind of bootlicking bullshit is it to say that firing people at an annual review is just “regular firings” rather than layoffs or culling.

First, who gives a shit about the term. Associates are getting pushed out of their jobs because the partners decided it’s more profitable. This is the way the industry works.

But second, anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills should understand that the annual reviews are intrinsically tied to the firm’s decisions about firings. If the firm decides it needs to cut associate ranks, it will give out harsher reviews. A given review is not decided in a vacuum, there is no objective basis to receive a 2, or 3, or 4. Market factors are going to deflate associate scores and are going to push some of them away from the firm, because the partners want it that way.

The point that's being made is that there's different information in scenario a: "the firm has resumed ordinary course letting go off the bottom 5% of associates at review time as has occurred with the biglaw pyramid scheme for the past 30 years pre-COVID" vs. scenario b: "the firm has initiated Latham 2.0 and is about to try to quietly fire 200 midlevels." Yes it's an annoying semantics debate to some extent but there's a reason behind it it's not just lawyers being lawyers and arguing definition of terms. So far it sounds like we're in scenario a not scenario b which is, like, really important to know.

[existentialcrisis]

What kind of bootlicking bullshit is it to say that firing people at an annual review is just “regular firings” rather than layoffs or culling.

First, who gives a shit about the term. Associates are getting pushed out of their jobs because the partners decided it’s more profitable. This is the way the industry works.

But second, anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills should understand that the annual reviews are intrinsically tied to the firm’s decisions about firings. If the firm decides it needs to cut associate ranks, it will give out harsher reviews. A given review is not decided in a vacuum, there is no objective basis to receive a 2, or 3, or 4. Market factors are going to deflate associate scores and are going to push some of them away from the firm, because the partners want it that way.

The point that's being made is that there's different information in scenario a: "the firm has resumed ordinary course letting go off the bottom 5% of associates at review time as has occurred with the biglaw pyramid scheme for the past 30 years pre-COVID" vs. scenario b: "the firm has initiated Latham 2.0 and is about to try to quietly fire 200 midlevels." Yes it's an annoying semantics debate to some extent but there's a reason behind it it's not just lawyers being lawyers and arguing definition of terms. So far it sounds like we're in scenario a not scenario b which is, like, really important to know.

There are tons of big law associates who are lazy and/or terrible at their jobs and who make more work for everyone else.

Seems preposterous to say there’s no relevant distinction between letting those people go and layoffs.

[Anonymous User]

insta is reporting significant downsizing in Texas, fyi. Unsure how reliable they are but it makes sense that the highest-growth offices have the strongest correction.

[Anonymous User]

My take, based on my understanding of how the firm works, is that Kirkland has been particularly effective at pitching, to transactional associates, that the firm is a meritocracy and better associates will benefit from that. The non-share partner and the variable bonuses help with that. But whether the bottom 5% or the bottom 20% gets cut at a particular juncture is purely an economic decision. And the decision of who gets put in the bottom 20% is not at all objective and depends on a lot of factors.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

My take, based on my understanding of how the firm works, is that Kirkland has been particularly effective at pitching, to transactional associates, that the firm is a meritocracy and better associates will benefit from that. The non-share partner and the variable bonuses help with that. But whether the bottom 5% or the bottom 20% gets cut at a particular juncture is purely an economic decision. And the decision of who gets put in the bottom 20% is not at all objective and depends on a lot of factors.

Correct. No firm is a meritocracy because the evaluation of who is “good” and “bad” is being made by people. Layoffs mostly affect under performers but they can easily wipe out great lawyers, too.

[Anonymous User]

insta is reporting significant downsizing in Texas, fyi. Unsure how reliable they are but it makes sense that the highest-growth offices have the strongest correction.

What is insta? Instagram?

Going to need a dish/source here. TX has fairly solid K&E offices, especially compared to some of its recent stinkers. Seems hard to believe.

[Anonymous User]

insta is reporting significant downsizing in Texas, fyi. Unsure how reliable they are but it makes sense that the highest-growth offices have the strongest correction.

What is insta? Instagram?

Going to need a dish/source here. TX has fairly solid K&E offices, especially compared to some of its recent stinkers. Seems hard to believe.

Solid yes, but also a practice group mix that is especially vulnerable to the business cycle making a turn for the worse

[Anonymous User]

insta is reporting significant downsizing in Texas, fyi. Unsure how reliable they are but it makes sense that the highest-growth offices have the strongest correction.

What is insta? Instagram?

Going to need a dish/source here. TX has fairly solid K&E offices, especially compared to some of its recent stinkers. Seems hard to believe.

Solid yes, but also a practice group mix that is especially vulnerable to the business cycle making a turn for the worse

their Houston office has also grown like crazy past few years. wouldn't surprise me if the instagram post was true (for the person asking, it was one of the "legal meme" accounts which was leaking the bonus memos from last year - it's not the NYT but it's not nothing)

[Anonymous User]

insta is reporting significant downsizing in Texas, fyi. Unsure how reliable they are but it makes sense that the highest-growth offices have the strongest correction.

What is insta? Instagram?

Going to need a dish/source here. TX has fairly solid K&E offices, especially compared to some of its recent stinkers. Seems hard to believe.

Solid yes, but also a practice group mix that is especially vulnerable to the business cycle making a turn for the worse

Houston generates a ton of countercyclical work though, just by the nature of our clients being PE firms. Yes, there is a significant energy focus (though we’ve diversified away from that to surprising degree in recent years), but when it’s energy PE and not actual oil companies, they can generate tons of work in a distressed market and are not necessarily tied to the actual industry itself doing well. It’s different at more traditional TX firms that serve the industry directly. The period with the fastest growth and most brutally high hours for this office was during the big oil crash a few years back.

I can confirm there were some cuts in Dallas, but I haven’t heard of any in Austin or here in Houston. The numbers are not large. Financials in TX remain very strong (and on KE Fishbowl you’ll notice the posts of associates nervous about being slow the past couple months were not from TX, and TX people were commenting suggesting other offices reach out to us for work because we’re busy).

[Anonymous User]

insta is reporting significant downsizing in Texas, fyi. Unsure how reliable they are but it makes sense that the highest-growth offices have the strongest correction.

What is insta? Instagram?

Going to need a dish/source here. TX has fairly solid K&E offices, especially compared to some of its recent stinkers. Seems hard to believe.

Non-equity partner on insta reported it--he stated today that it's beyond TX and consists primarily of people who have been under-hours for a LONG time, so not so much a downsizing as pulling out the chaff that had been allowed to hang around too long

[Anonymous User]

This is all very confusing. So as a (barely) second-year associate in lit, is slightly above 1500 billable (plus 2-300 or more other legal/pro bono hours) after being here one year enough? Or is this targeting more 3rd and 4th years?

Admittedly hard to gauge as a relatively new lawyer when to take on more things since my cases seem to either be really busy or in a lull for a sec (the latter being a bad time to take more work since my other matters would suffer when they ramp up).

[Anonymous User]

insta is reporting significant downsizing in Texas, fyi. Unsure how reliable they are but it makes sense that the highest-growth offices have the strongest correction.

???

[Anonymous User]

This is all very confusing. So as a (barely) second-year associate in lit, is slightly above 1500 billable (plus 2-300 or more other legal/pro bono hours) after being here one year enough? Or is this targeting more 3rd and 4th years?

Admittedly hard to gauge as a relatively new lawyer when to take on more things since my cases seem to either be really busy or in a lull for a sec (the latter being a bad time to take more work since my other matters would suffer when they ramp up).

If you are pacing for 1500 you need to take on more matters, no matter the off an on. Also, FWIW, I doubt pro bono is counted toward anything that matters when it comes to hiring and firing decisions.

[Anonymous User]

This is all very confusing. So as a (barely) second-year associate in lit, is slightly above 1500 billable (plus 2-300 or more other legal/pro bono hours) after being here one year enough? Or is this targeting more 3rd and 4th years?

Admittedly hard to gauge as a relatively new lawyer when to take on more things since my cases seem to either be really busy or in a lull for a sec (the latter being a bad time to take more work since my other matters would suffer when they ramp up).

If you are pacing for 1500 you need to take on more matters, no matter the off an on. Also, FWIW, I doubt pro bono is counted toward anything that matters when it comes to hiring and firing decisions.

Agree with this. I did have those same exact hours as a first year and was totally safe but went up to over 2400 as a second year. You have to really ramp up and get over 2000 hours. Pro bono doesn't count unless it is something prestigious that the firm cares about or if you are working closely with an important partner.

[Anonymous User]

This is all very confusing. So as a (barely) second-year associate in lit, is slightly above 1500 billable (plus 2-300 or more other legal/pro bono hours) after being here one year enough? Or is this targeting more 3rd and 4th years?

Admittedly hard to gauge as a relatively new lawyer when to take on more things since my cases seem to either be really busy or in a lull for a sec (the latter being a bad time to take more work since my other matters would suffer when they ramp up).

If you are pacing for 1500 you need to take on more matters, no matter the off an on. Also, FWIW, I doubt pro bono is counted toward anything that matters when it comes to hiring and firing decisions.

Agree with this. I did have those same exact hours as a first year and was totally safe but went up to over 2400 as a second year. You have to really ramp up and get over 2000 hours. Pro bono doesn't count unless it is something prestigious that the firm cares about or if you are working closely with an important partner.

Pro bono is a nice way to e.g., buff your hours from 1950 billable to 2100 total so they don't fuck you on the bonus, especially after last year where they effectively admitted to a 2,000 hour cut-off to be able to get above market. The firm has to give enough institutional support to pro bono that they don't create a scandal / expose about greedy Kirkland partners not helping the children (and hey, non-cynical point: pro bono can actually help people). That said, no one's career is being saved who bills 1,500 but adds in another 600 pro bono; people like that do get the talk (although they'll first be told to cut the pro bono). Usual qualifiers of YMMV if you're doing the work for someone on the Firm Committee or about to argue before the Supreme Court because of your pro bono case.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you. Yes, I’ve definitely been ramping up more with all my recent months being busier and mostly billable. I’m actually going to hit 1600-not 1500. If the way I’m currently billing was annualized, I’d be over 2100. It was the earlier part of the year when I first joined the firm/was new where I didn’t really bill as much as I do now. Hopefully that’s taken into consideration…

[Anonymous User]

insta is reporting significant downsizing in Texas, fyi. Unsure how reliable they are but it makes sense that the highest-growth offices have the strongest correction.

What is insta? Instagram?

Going to need a dish/source here. TX has fairly solid K&E offices, especially compared to some of its recent stinkers. Seems hard to believe.

Non-equity partner on insta reported it--he stated today that it's beyond TX and consists primarily of people who have been under-hours for a LONG time, so not so much a downsizing as pulling out the chaff that had been allowed to hang around too long

I know of several K&E attorneys being laid off who are not poor performers or consistently low on hours. I also know of several K&E attorneys with low hours who are not being laid off. These are economic decisions, with practice group, class year, and partnership politics driving who get chopped. I’m not comfortable sharing more, but others might if yall stop blaming and shaming to feel better.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you. Yes, I’ve definitely been ramping up more with all my recent months being busier and mostly billable. I’m actually going to hit 1600-not 1500. If the way I’m currently billing was annualized, I’d be over 2100. It was the earlier part of the year when I first joined the firm/was new where I didn’t really bill as much as I do now. Hopefully that’s taken into consideration…

Everything I’ve been told is that first year is an exception, so what matters is basically your hours from year 2 and beyond. If you’re too slow as a first year, they’ll tell you so during your review, but it won’t have any actual negative ramifications unless you’re that slow again the next year.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you! I hope that’s true. And as for the pro bono, I’m at least glad that I’m working on it with one of the partners with most pull in the department one-on-one. So hopefully that helps on the margins even if not too important.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Thank you! I hope that’s true. And as for the pro bono, I’m at least glad that I’m working on it with one of the partners with most pull in the department one-on-one. So hopefully that helps on the margins even if not too important.

K&E isn’t firing a first year for billing 1600. In this economy that’s not even particularly slow. Non-issue.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you! I hope that’s true. And as for the pro bono, I’m at least glad that I’m working on it with one of the partners with most pull in the department one-on-one. So hopefully that helps on the margins even if not too important.

K&E isn’t firing a first year for billing 1600. In this economy that’s not even particularly slow. Non-issue.

You have to be a unique combination of a terrible person AND terrible at your job to be shown the door in your first year. I've seen it happen, but its rare.