KE NSP Autonomy? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I made it after 11 years (but technically 12 because I was cut a class year when I lateralled in). 10 years is the minimum (yes there are shorter but only in exceptional circumstances), 11-12 more common. You don't really see 13+ because anybody taking that long isn't somebody the firm probably thinks of as SP material.

Is there a group most conducive to getting shares and getting shares earlier rather than later?

M&A

All the big transactional practices. General lit. is becoming a wasteland for NSPs and I've heard the review committees are actively trying to steer people away from it and into more of the niche lit. practices which are seen as better growth opportunities.

In DC (KE’s only lit-first office I think) it seems like about an average of 1 lit SP a year. Maybe that’s inflated in my head by a recent year in which 2 made it, but I’d say roughly one a year. Considering summer/first year classes in this office are like 15 litigators apiece, that seems about right for biglaw. What % of first year associates at V10s will end up as homegrown equity partners? 1/15 doesn’t feel like a wasteland to me. Maybe CH/NY have worse numbers for litigators.

[Anonymous User]

I made it after 11 years (but technically 12 because I was cut a class year when I lateralled in). 10 years is the minimum (yes there are shorter but only in exceptional circumstances), 11-12 more common. You don't really see 13+ because anybody taking that long isn't somebody the firm probably thinks of as SP material.

Is there a group most conducive to getting shares and getting shares earlier rather than later?

M&A

All the big transactional practices. General lit. is becoming a wasteland for NSPs and I've heard the review committees are actively trying to steer people away from it and into more of the niche lit. practices which are seen as better growth opportunities.

In DC (KE’s only lit-first office I think) it seems like about an average of 1 lit SP a year. Maybe that’s inflated in my head by a recent year in which 2 made it, but I’d say roughly one a year. Considering summer/first year classes in this office are like 15 litigators apiece, that seems about right for biglaw. What % of first year associates at V10s will end up as homegrown equity partners? 1/15 doesn’t feel like a wasteland to me. Maybe CH/NY have worse numbers for litigators.

I think NY has made one homegrown litigator an SP in the last decade. Certainly only one in the last 5 or so years.

Edit: Two if you want to include the guy who worked for a year or two interspersed with SCOTUS clerking/AUSAing before coming back.

[Anonymous User]

I made it after 11 years (but technically 12 because I was cut a class year when I lateralled in). 10 years is the minimum (yes there are shorter but only in exceptional circumstances), 11-12 more common. You don't really see 13+ because anybody taking that long isn't somebody the firm probably thinks of as SP material.

Is there a group most conducive to getting shares and getting shares earlier rather than later?

M&A

All the big transactional practices. General lit. is becoming a wasteland for NSPs and I've heard the review committees are actively trying to steer people away from it and into more of the niche lit. practices which are seen as better growth opportunities.

In DC (KE’s only lit-first office I think) it seems like about an average of 1 lit SP a year. Maybe that’s inflated in my head by a recent year in which 2 made it, but I’d say roughly one a year. Considering summer/first year classes in this office are like 15 litigators apiece, that seems about right for biglaw. What % of first year associates at V10s will end up as homegrown equity partners? 1/15 doesn’t feel like a wasteland to me. Maybe CH/NY have worse numbers for litigators.

I think NY has made one homegrown litigator an SP in the last decade. Certainly only one in the last 5 or so years.

Edit: Two if you want to include the guy who worked for a year or two interspersed with SCOTUS clerking/AUSAing before coming back.

There's also the whole "take shares from lit and give them to restructuring" thing that happened a few years ago.

[Anonymous User]

I made it after 11 years (but technically 12 because I was cut a class year when I lateralled in). 10 years is the minimum (yes there are shorter but only in exceptional circumstances), 11-12 more common. You don't really see 13+ because anybody taking that long isn't somebody the firm probably thinks of as SP material.

Is there a group most conducive to getting shares and getting shares earlier rather than later?

M&A

All the big transactional practices. General lit. is becoming a wasteland for NSPs and I've heard the review committees are actively trying to steer people away from it and into more of the niche lit. practices which are seen as better growth opportunities.

In DC (KE’s only lit-first office I think) it seems like about an average of 1 lit SP a year. Maybe that’s inflated in my head by a recent year in which 2 made it, but I’d say roughly one a year. Considering summer/first year classes in this office are like 15 litigators apiece, that seems about right for biglaw. What % of first year associates at V10s will end up as homegrown equity partners? 1/15 doesn’t feel like a wasteland to me. Maybe CH/NY have worse numbers for litigators.

I think NY has made one homegrown litigator an SP in the last decade. Certainly only one in the last 5 or so years.

Edit: Two if you want to include the guy who worked for a year or two interspersed with SCOTUS clerking/AUSAing before coming back.

There's also the whole "take shares from lit and give them to restructuring" thing that happened a few years ago.

Chicago has a bunch of homegrown litigators. 1-2 per year seem to make it. Litigation there is spectacularly busy these days.

Didn't know about the shares moving around like that. Makes you wonder about how representative the PPP numbers really are for what people outside corporate get paid.

[lawhawk1836]

Is there a general number of years until shares?

Expect to wait 4 years after you make NSP (i.e., as an 11th year lawyer, 10 years after you start at the firm,).

However, a small minority may make it after 3 years of being an NSP. Seen plenty of folks make it later than that, too.

Yeah the path is much longer than that for most people now. It's considered exceptional to get shares at your 11th year these days. What you say was true back in the day but so much has changed in the past 5-10 years. Maybe that will change for the better this year who the hell knows maybe they make all the transactional 11th years share partners in response to attrition (doubt it!)

Mmm not really. Maybe in your office. Here in Texas, equity has been pretty consistently a 10 year track.

Kirkland hasn't even had Texas offices for 10 years, so perhaps your tiny sample size of less than 10% of the firm over less than a decade isn't really representative.

Why so snarky? People ask for experiences, I’m giving mine, with accurate information, from a non-anonymous account, and you can take it however you want. I literally acknowledged that I can’t speak to other offices.

But in Texas, people have generally made equity in their ninth, tenth or eleventh year as an attorney, and usually in their tenth. The fact that the office wasn’t open 10 years ago doesn’t change that.

We're being a little snarky because your experience sounds unrepresentative working for a few years in one of our small offices. You can assume you're talking with people from major offices with a decade+ at the firm who have seen a lot more than you. If someone you know in one of our Texas offices got an early NSP promotion that's fine, no one is calling you a liar. I think we're all on the same page that it's super, super uncommon and maybe nearly unheard of outside of I guess an office in Texas lol. Also, again, is it possible people got equity at yr 10/11? Sure. But the broad trend at the firm is a significant extension of the path to equity which you sound like you haven't been around to even see.

The Texas market is pretty unique. For people reading this in the future, I wouldn't draw too much inference about how KE operates in its major markets (Chicago, NY, DC, LA/SF to a lesser extent) from this, that's all.

Doesn't Texas represent 10% of K&E's revenue? Sounds pretty "major" and not very "small" to me.

[Anonymous User]

Expect to wait 4 years after you make NSP (i.e., as an 11th year lawyer, 10 years after you start at the firm,).

However, a small minority may make it after 3 years of being an NSP. Seen plenty of folks make it later than that, too.

Yeah the path is much longer than that for most people now. It's considered exceptional to get shares at your 11th year these days. What you say was true back in the day but so much has changed in the past 5-10 years. Maybe that will change for the better this year who the hell knows maybe they make all the transactional 11th years share partners in response to attrition (doubt it!)

Mmm not really. Maybe in your office. Here in Texas, equity has been pretty consistently a 10 year track.

Kirkland hasn't even had Texas offices for 10 years, so perhaps your tiny sample size of less than 10% of the firm over less than a decade isn't really representative.

Why so snarky? People ask for experiences, I’m giving mine, with accurate information, from a non-anonymous account, and you can take it however you want. I literally acknowledged that I can’t speak to other offices.

But in Texas, people have generally made equity in their ninth, tenth or eleventh year as an attorney, and usually in their tenth. The fact that the office wasn’t open 10 years ago doesn’t change that.

We're being a little snarky because your experience sounds unrepresentative working for a few years in one of our small offices. You can assume you're talking with people from major offices with a decade+ at the firm who have seen a lot more than you. If someone you know in one of our Texas offices got an early NSP promotion that's fine, no one is calling you a liar. I think we're all on the same page that it's super, super uncommon and maybe nearly unheard of outside of I guess an office in Texas lol. Also, again, is it possible people got equity at yr 10/11? Sure. But the broad trend at the firm is a significant extension of the path to equity which you sound like you haven't been around to even see.

The Texas market is pretty unique. For people reading this in the future, I wouldn't draw too much inference about how KE operates in its major markets (Chicago, NY, DC, LA/SF to a lesser extent) from this, that's all.

Doesn't Texas represent 10% of K&E's revenue? Sounds pretty "major" and not very "small" to me.

I don't think 1/10th of the firm's revenue spread across three offices in a state is major; the description given seems fair. Like I said, it's certainly recognized as a growth op so who knows maybe one day they'll talk about Houston the same way they talk about London, stranger things have happened. Aside: This exchange made me actually go look up headcount in our various offices and Houston's growth really is amazing--to be at 200+ attorneys 7 years after opening is awesome. It also may explain some of the divergence we're seeing in how people are talking about NSP / SP promotion here, maybe things are just more aggressive in the Texas offices. But that doesn't change the point that the firm's power and culture centers, which set the tone for things like promotion approach, remain in CHI/NY, then probably DC/London, then Bay Area/LA in descending order of importance and so it's no good to draw wide inferences about the firm from Texas-specific experience; how many people on the Firm Committee are from Texas offices, for example (the answer is 1 out of 20--AC).

[Anonymous User]

When exactly do they let you know? I inadvertently came across an offer letter to someone coming in as Class of 2017 that says you can make NSP subject to satisfactory review September 2023. Is it only officially confirmed that late?

Any thoughts on this?

[Anonymous User]

[In DC (KE’s only lit-first office I think) it seems like about an average of 1 lit SP a year. Maybe that’s inflated in my head by a recent year in which 2 made it, but I’d say roughly one a year. Considering summer/first year classes in this office are like 15 litigators apiece, that seems about right for biglaw. What % of first year associates at V10s will end up as homegrown equity partners? 1/15 doesn’t feel like a wasteland to me. Maybe CH/NY have worse numbers for litigators.
[/quote]

We haven't made someone in gen lit in three years though ... right?

[Anonymous User]

When exactly do they let you know? I inadvertently came across an offer letter to someone coming in as Class of 2017 that says you can make NSP subject to satisfactory review September 2023. Is it only officially confirmed that late?

Any thoughts on this?

When else would it be confirmed? That's the review after 6 years.

[Anonymous User]

When exactly do they let you know? I inadvertently came across an offer letter to someone coming in as Class of 2017 that says you can make NSP subject to satisfactory review September 2023. Is it only officially confirmed that late?

Any thoughts on this?

When else would it be confirmed? That's the review after 6 years.

This is some share partner shit -- following up on a question that's been answered with "Any thoughts on this?" Almost as bad as "Where are we on this?"

[Anonymous User]

We haven't made someone in gen lit in three years though ... right?

I think there has only been one in the last 2 years and he is an IP/gen lit/appeals hybrid (initials JW). But we have three from C/O 2008 alone. I still think if you had to round to an integer the answer would be an average of 1 per year.

[Anonymous User]

Just sat through finance portion of annual firm partner meeting. TL;DR: "We're rich, bitch." It really is eye-watering how much the firm has broken away from the rest of the industry. They also had a lot of acknowledgment about burn-out, hours being too high, and attrition issues which hopefully translates into very generous bonuses (though the first thing they talk about as a solution is this push to laterally hire, which is fine but then can lead to things like this: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business- ... mands-grow)

[Anonymous User]

Just sat through finance portion of annual firm partner meeting. TL;DR: "We're rich, bitch." It really is eye-watering how much the firm has broken away from the rest of the industry. They also had a lot of acknowledgment about burn-out, hours being too high, and attrition issues which hopefully translates into very generous bonuses (though the first thing they talk about as a solution is this push to laterally hire, which is fine but then can lead to things like this: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business- ... mands-grow)

Do you think this (the impact mentioned in the article) will hurt junior's career trajectory or lateral ability? Considering a KE lateral (year 1-2) and know the firm obviously does high-level work but also worry somewhat about being associated with the influx of those with a lack of credentials... Would be coming from a v10 known for higher recruiting standards

[Anonymous User]

Just sat through finance portion of annual firm partner meeting. TL;DR: "We're rich, bitch." It really is eye-watering how much the firm has broken away from the rest of the industry. They also had a lot of acknowledgment about burn-out, hours being too high, and attrition issues which hopefully translates into very generous bonuses (though the first thing they talk about as a solution is this push to laterally hire, which is fine but then can lead to things like this: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business- ... mands-grow)

Do you think this (the impact mentioned in the article) will hurt junior's career trajectory or lateral ability? Considering a KE lateral (year 1-2) and know the firm obviously does high-level work but also worry somewhat about being associated with the influx of those with a lack of credentials... Would be coming from a v10 known for higher recruiting standards

No. People are sophisticated--if you have good credentials, are doing good work, associated with good partners they're not going to just lump you in with other associates the firm may have bent standards for to meet a short-term need during COVID. More generally I think this is a short-term blip to meet an extraordinary hiring demand / attrition response; I don't think KE will keep going into the minor leagues forever--we just heard opening remarks that focused on the importance of "prestige" I kid you not. So I don't think there will be long term reputational hits here or client service hits.

My biggest takeaway from a case mgmt perspective is I need to pay more attention about the quality of new laterals and figure out which ones to avoid staffing or at least only use as warm bodies vs. those who are going to have a longer track record here if they want it. There are definitely some people we've hired in the last 12 months who you know aren't going to be here in a few years (even if they wanted to stick around); we'll use them for deal flow and then be done.

[Anonymous User]

My biggest takeaway from a case mgmt perspective is I need to pay more attention about the quality of new laterals and figure out which ones to avoid staffing or at least only use as warm bodies vs. those who are going to have a longer track record here if they want it. There are definitely some people we've hired in the last 12 months who you know aren't going to be here in a few years (even if they wanted to stick around); we'll use them for deal flow and then be done.

This is my takeaway as well and anyone looking to lateral should be clear-eyed about this. I don't think KE is hiring laterals with the group knowing that they're just a temporary warm body or something, but I do think that some laterals might be coming over and trying to get their feet under them for a while - but then they get stuck on some shitty workstreams, they get a first impression within the first X months that they aren't a rock star, and then they are locked on a track to first out the door once the economy cools off.

There is just so much going on that you aren't going to get the kind of training you want, you aren't going to get the ramp-up time you want, you might not get the type of interaction with partners that you want (they are either too busy, not coming into the office, or both), and there's a real chance that if things just go a little wrong, you will have no chance at a long- or possibly medium-term future, depending on the economy in 22/23. And FWIW I don't think this will have anything to do with whether the lateral is a Fordham or BU grad instead of NYU or Michigan or whatever.

[Anonymous User]

My biggest takeaway from a case mgmt perspective is I need to pay more attention about the quality of new laterals and figure out which ones to avoid staffing or at least only use as warm bodies vs. those who are going to have a longer track record here if they want it. There are definitely some people we've hired in the last 12 months who you know aren't going to be here in a few years (even if they wanted to stick around); we'll use them for deal flow and then be done.

This is my takeaway as well and anyone looking to lateral should be clear-eyed about this. I don't think KE is hiring laterals with the group knowing that they're just a temporary warm body or something, but I do think that some laterals might be coming over and trying to get their feet under them for a while - but then they get stuck on some shitty workstreams, they get a first impression within the first X months that they aren't a rock star, and then they are locked on a track to first out the door once the economy cools off.

There is just so much going on that you aren't going to get the kind of training you want, you aren't going to get the ramp-up time you want, you might not get the type of interaction with partners that you want (they are either too busy, not coming into the office, or both), and there's a real chance that if things just go a little wrong, you will have no chance at a long- or possibly medium-term future, depending on the economy in 22/23. And FWIW I don't think this will have anything to do with whether the lateral is a Fordham or BU grad instead of NYU or Michigan or whatever.

So, sounds like you recommend staying away from KE right now? I know this is going on at a lot of the top firms to an extent

[Lawsohard99]

I think you take the opportunity at K&E even if not long term because of the career prospects. The network is incredible and even young NSPs (I’ve heard of some second year and even a first year NSP last year) are being offered shares to lateral to other firms with no book, not to mention GC positions if in house is your goal. Even if you’re not on the path to shares as long as you aren’t a total asshole it feels like they’ve made an effort to try and put people in places with soft landings on the in house side (assuming you don’t take advantage of another firm offering you shares to jump early).

[uygiugiyugyugk]

as an older law school applicant i hear a lot about ageism in biglaw. assuming i got hired at 40, would a place like K&E realistically consider someone for partnership whose, what, 52?

[Anonymous User]

as an older law school applicant i hear a lot about ageism in biglaw. assuming i got hired at 40, would a place like K&E realistically consider someone for partnership whose, what, 52?

No idea how it compares to the rest of biglaw, but I sense KE de-equitizes/gives a graceful off-ramp to partners at a pretty early age. The equity partners that are making big splashes are largely in their 40s and early 50s. That isn’t a coincidence.

[enibs]

The reputation in the market is that K&E has suffered some pretty severe attrition and is super-desperate in hiring, so you may be able to snag a pretty good upfront deal. Wouldn’t count on long-term though. And from my perspective, the whole NSP thing is just a scam to keep people in what is essentially a senior associate role for several years before having to make a decision on whether to make them real partners.

[Anonymous User]

as an older law school applicant i hear a lot about ageism in biglaw. assuming i got hired at 40, would a place like K&E realistically consider someone for partnership whose, what, 52?

KE has a very strict equity off-ramp that they make basically no exceptions for. I believe it's 65 but that's an informed guess by me. There are infamous stories in the firm of very successful, lucrative partners still being forced out of equity per the rule; the view is it's important to give the next generation their room and it's important for culture to not have an old equity partnership.

That said, planning your career around the idea of getting equity at Kirkland or really any firm in the V25 as a law school applicant is sort of like being a grade school basketball player and preparing your schedule for life in the NBA. There's so much between where you are now and where you'll be by the time it's even a relevant consideration, if it happens (low odds), that I wouldn't let that influence your planning too much. Just try to get into the best firm you can in terms of compensation, practice area, and firm health.

[Anonymous User]

as an older law school applicant i hear a lot about ageism in biglaw. assuming i got hired at 40, would a place like K&E realistically consider someone for partnership whose, what, 52?

No idea how it compares to the rest of biglaw, but I sense KE de-equitizes/gives a graceful off-ramp to partners at a pretty early age. The equity partners that are making big splashes are largely in their 40s and early 50s. That isn’t a coincidence.

STB also maintains a hard exit; in their case, I believe it's 62. They might let you stick around with a counsel title and let you maintain an office for a bit if you have certain skills/knowledge/contacts that aren't readily replaceable, but they will de-equitize. Of course, you will have a fat pension, so...idk, enjoy life?

[Anonymous User]

I think you take the opportunity at K&E even if not long term because of the career prospects. The network is incredible and even young NSPs (I’ve heard of some second year and even a first year NSP last year) are being offered shares to lateral to other firms with no book, not to mention GC positions if in house is your goal. Even if you’re not on the path to shares as long as you aren’t a total asshole it feels like they’ve made an effort to try and put people in places with soft landings on the in house side (assuming you don’t take advantage of another firm offering you shares to jump early).

Way easier to lateral inhouse with a big title. V50s/100s often require a hard book, they're ironically more cost sensitive to this kind of thing, the main way you can get equity is if they have a rainmaker on their way out and are looking for a plug and play candidate to jump in and pick up the book.

Kicking tires on this stuff, you find out V50-100s are far more "eat what you kill" than a lot of V10-25s.

[Sackboy]

Way easier to lateral inhouse with a big title. V50s/100s often require a hard book, they're ironically more cost sensitive to this kind of thing, the main way you can get equity is if they have a rainmaker on their way out and are looking for a plug and play candidate to jump in and pick up the book.

Kicking tires on this stuff, you find out V50-100s are far more "eat what you kill" than a lot of V10-25s.

I agree with this assessment. V10s have pricing models and client lists where it's really just not remotely reasonable that you'll ever have a book, and they understand that. If they think you're a phenomenal associate/non-equity partner who has very good relationships with existing institutional clients, you'll make shares. They then expect your good reputation along with the strength of their platform to generate new work. At a V50-100, they often have explicit dollar thresholds that can be incredibly hard to hit. I know of at least one V50 that requires a $1M book to make shares and another that requires you to generate enough work to keep 2 associates busy. You can check the boxes that would get you shares at a V10 but not make partner at a V50. There is also so much money sloshing around at a V10 that I've found it to be to some degree less competitive in terms of partners sharing credit.

[Anonymous User]

as an older law school applicant i hear a lot about ageism in biglaw. assuming i got hired at 40, would a place like K&E realistically consider someone for partnership whose, what, 52?

No idea how it compares to the rest of biglaw, but I sense KE de-equitizes/gives a graceful off-ramp to partners at a pretty early age. The equity partners that are making big splashes are largely in their 40s and early 50s. That isn’t a coincidence.

STB also maintains a hard exit; in their case, I believe it's 62. They might let you stick around with a counsel title and let you maintain an office for a bit if you have certain skills/knowledge/contacts that aren't readily replaceable, but they will de-equitize. Of course, you will have a fat pension, so...idk, enjoy life?

Confirming it’s 62 at STB. Some partners have been allowed to stay on as non-equity, but it’s a hard cutoff for equity. These kinds of limits are very, very common. In fact, a handful of firms without mandatory retirement ages, such as Quinn, are known to gather rainmaker partners who hit the retirement age at their old firm but still wanted to work and have big books.

To get back to the original question, I would think a firm with a mandatory retirement age is probably not that likely to make a 52-year-old 8th year associate partner unless they already have a big book of business because the time to build a practice as a partner isn’t there. But I’ve never known a senior associate on partner track older than maybe early/mid 40s, so hard to say for certain.