Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline Forum

[thisismytlsuername]

Do the people who lateraled in as NSPs with a 1 or 2-year guarantee count as "internal promotions"? If so, that would explain a lot of the high number, and also, lol.

This doesn’t really happen. Nobody guarantees lateral NSPs shares.

You can quibble over the word "guarantee" but there are certainly plenty of NSPs who come over with the promise of getting shares in 1-2 years, and do.

Different anon but this isn't just a quibble. Yes we recruit plenty of people on the premise (not promise) of "do a couple years in the NSP ranks and then we'll put you up for shares." It's worked out well right now with every piece of the firm growing like bananas, but if there's ever a downturn, even just in a specific practice group not necessarily more broadly in the firm or legal industry, you can bet those "then you'll get shares" claims would disappear. It's easy to be magnanimous when everything's going well and far harder when things get difficult. We never sign a piece of paper guaranteeing shares. The advice I've gotten from plenty of people before when discussing lateral options is "a path to equity isn't equity."

Ok buddy. How about this -- does the "internal promotions" number include people who came over as NSPs on a 1 or 2 year look and then made shares? Because if so, it's bullshit.

Happy now?

I don't give enough of a shit about this discussion to even track the point you're trying to make. I'm not going to waste my time on TLS debating partner promotion stats. I'm just pointing out that people need to be careful w/ assuming when you're lateraling into somewhere, even Kirkland, that talk about a path to shares = shares because it doesn't and there's a real risk there which gets ignored when times are extra good

"I'm not going to waste my time arguing on the internet," he whines, as he posts on TLS.

[Anonymous User]

There is so much to laugh at/be mad about re: Kirkland that it is baffling the usual suspects are doing so over these objectively good SP promotion numbers.

The firm made ~60 SPs this year and the original NSP class that would be eligible numbered 97. Yes, there are a bunch of lateral NSPs that would have inflated that 97 number. But consider the fact that the firm's most recent NSP class numbered only 151: https://www.kirkland.com/news/press-rel ... w-partners

Surely the relevant group that was up for shares this year would be smaller than the newest NSP class, even with laterals and all. (Going from 97 to 151 in just four years shows the firm's massive, unwieldy, wildly profitable, almost certainly unsustainable growth, by the way.)

Even if you assume that it's the same size, though, any biglaw firm giving equity to 60 lawyers out of a group of 150 eligible senior associates/NSPs is doing something that we should celebrate.

If you want to get equity at a V10, your best bet right now seems to be start at the best firm you can that's not named Kirkland in the hottest practice group you can think of, and lateral over around year 7 or 8. Kirkland is bad for so many reasons (and I'm there right now) but I have to say that the equity dream for my psychopathic colleagues is still alive here in ways that it really isn't at other peer firms.

[thisismytlsuername]

Multiple people (maybe, it's hard to tell with the anon abuse) were applauding Kirkland for the number of "internal promotions" to SP. I simply asked if we are counting NSP laterals with 1 or 2 year looks as "internal promotions". I would bet that NSPs who summered at Kirkland might not.

It would require more math than I'm willing to do to figure out if 60 promotions is really laudable, or if it's par for the course proportionally. It looks like they promoted a class about 15% the size of its existing equity partner group, which does feel slightly higher than its peers. That said, it's pretty well accepted that Kirkland is a volume practice nowadays.

[Sackboy]

Multiple people (maybe, it's hard to tell with the anon abuse) were applauding Kirkland for the number of "internal promotions" to SP. I simply asked if we are counting NSP laterals with 1 or 2 year looks as "internal promotions". I would bet that NSPs who summered at Kirkland might not.

It would require more math than I'm willing to do to figure out if 60 promotions is really laudable, or if it's par for the course proportionally. It looks like they promoted a class about 15% the size of its existing equity partner group, which does feel slightly higher than its peers. That said, it's pretty well accepted that Kirkland is a volume practice nowadays.

I think you also need to go back to my original analysis and ask what % of promotions are in each group. It could very well be that KE and DPW are making corporate share partners at the same rate but KE just has more volume so the absolute number is higher. I know lawyers aren't famous for doing math, but relative % almost always matters more than absolute number. Based on my searching online, KE's SP class is good but not astronomically above many other SP classes made in the V50.

[Anonymous User]

Isn't the number inflated anyway. They basically had two classes up this year because of the change in their partnership track. How do you even figure out who made equity partner with how black box they are about it?

[Anonymous User]

There is so much to laugh at/be mad about re: Kirkland that it is baffling the usual suspects are doing so over these objectively good SP promotion numbers.

The firm made ~60 SPs this year and the original NSP class that would be eligible numbered 97. Yes, there are a bunch of lateral NSPs that would have inflated that 97 number. But consider the fact that the firm's most recent NSP class numbered only 151: https://www.kirkland.com/news/press-rel ... w-partners

Surely the relevant group that was up for shares this year would be smaller than the newest NSP class, even with laterals and all. (Going from 97 to 151 in just four years shows the firm's massive, unwieldy, wildly profitable, almost certainly unsustainable growth, by the way.)

Even if you assume that it's the same size, though, any biglaw firm giving equity to 60 lawyers out of a group of 150 eligible senior associates/NSPs is doing something that we should celebrate.

If you want to get equity at a V10, your best bet right now seems to be start at the best firm you can that's not named Kirkland in the hottest practice group you can think of, and lateral over around year 7 or 8. Kirkland is bad for so many reasons (and I'm there right now) but I have to say that the equity dream for my psychopathic colleagues is still alive here in ways that it really isn't at other peer firms.

Mind sharing more about your experience at K&E? What do you dislike? What do you like (if anything)? Did you lateral — if so, what was your last firm experience like and what drew you to Kirkland?

Anything you would be willing to share would be much appreciated.