K&E Share Partner taking questions about K&E Forum

[Anonymous User]

What are your thoughts on Kirkland DC? Is the culture different from Chicago or New York? Had a callback with one of their regulatory practices and thought everyone was nice

[Anonymous User]

Lol I too could lead a relatively balanced life and bill 2700 hrs/year if "relatively balanced" meant sleeping for four hours/night. It may be that you are on the very genetic tail end of sleep needs (in which case, great), but for most that is superhuman. Also edit: long-term of health effects of that little sleep would also cause most people to die or get dementia many years too early.

@ the next poster: DC regulatory is probably going to be easier than lit, which is no walk in the park but still probably easier than the hellish corp lifestyle, which is easier than the unholy plane that is restructuring. If you liked the people, I would go for it.

[Anonymous User]

Regulatory groups are the most humane groups, relatively speaking, in BigLaw. Maybe I am giving law students too much credit, but I think this is a big reason why DC is so competitive at OCI.

[Anonymous User]

Regulatory groups are the most humane groups, relatively speaking, in BigLaw. Maybe I am giving law students too much credit, but I think this is a big reason why DC is so competitive at OCI.

100% giving law students too much credit

[Anonymous User]

Anon as I work @ Kirkland and post history will expose me.

Only have this to say - while I agree that there is a lot of misinformation about Kirkland on TLS generally, not all critiques/questions/comments need to be "clapped back at" as though they are inherently debatable. You may healthfully disagree with the implications arising from someone's story or experience. You can disagree with how an individual interprets something as well. But, how someone experiences his/her work environment is not really a debatable topic that you can "win" at by shaming them for feeling a certain type of way.

If someone has a bad experience at a firm like Kirkland and comes to TLS to air that out semi-appropriately, then it's not "misinformation" about Kirkland or whichever firm. It's just information about that person's experience at the said firm, which is relevant to people making employment decisions. Readers have to make what they will out of it and treat it with a grain of salt knowing not everyone has the same experience or even filters similar experiences similarly.

[Anonymous User]

KE anon. The OP seems to have bounced because of the drama. A lot of the info he was referencing was accurate and he knew things that people outside of KE shouldn't be aware of. I suspect it was an actual SP or worst case an NSP with a tight line to an in-the-know SP. Either way some of the comments here were lousy and it was a blown opportunity to get more info.

Also, saw a comment a few pages back asking if it's true that NSPs start at 650-700k. LMFAO no. The firm tries to keep NSP base comp roughly at industry scale. The biggest difference is the bonus will be better than your peers by some multiplier like 1.3x or 1.7x (which can become a big number at that level of seniority) and also the firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year, which I never see being discussed anywhere but it's a big deal as far as all-in comp. over time. It adds up at the end of the day, maybe you're making 50, 75, 100k more than your equivalent associate peers, but let's not get nuts and think NSPs are making 700k out the gate. Maybe the situation is different for a few outlier superstar NSPs who are pre-destined to make SP or else for so-called "permanent" NSPs (which is basically of counsel for the 21st c.) but I know less about either of those situations.

[Anonymous User]

KE anon. The OP seems to have bounced because of the drama. A lot of the info he was referencing was accurate and he knew things that people outside of KE shouldn't be aware of. I suspect it was an actual SP or worst case an NSP with a tight line to an in-the-know SP. Either way some of the comments here were lousy and it was a blown opportunity to get more info.

Also, saw a comment a few pages back asking if it's true that NSPs start at 650-700k. LMFAO no. The firm tries to keep NSP base comp roughly at industry scale. The biggest difference is the bonus will be better than your peers by some multiplier like 1.3x or 1.7x (which can become a big number at that level of seniority) and also the firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year, which I never see being discussed anywhere but it's a big deal as far as all-in comp. over time. It adds up at the end of the day, maybe you're making 50, 75, 100k more than your equivalent associate peers, but let's not get nuts and think NSPs are making 700k out the gate. Maybe the situation is different for a few outlier superstar NSPs who are pre-destined to make SP or else for so-called "permanent" NSPs (which is basically of counsel for the 21st c.) but I know less about either of those situations.

I made the comment about the NSP. I didn’t say first year NSP. I said average.

[Anonymous User]

KE anon. The OP seems to have bounced because of the drama. A lot of the info he was referencing was accurate and he knew things that people outside of KE shouldn't be aware of. I suspect it was an actual SP or worst case an NSP with a tight line to an in-the-know SP. Either way some of the comments here were lousy and it was a blown opportunity to get more info.

Also, saw a comment a few pages back asking if it's true that NSPs start at 650-700k. LMFAO no. The firm tries to keep NSP base comp roughly at industry scale. The biggest difference is the bonus will be better than your peers by some multiplier like 1.3x or 1.7x (which can become a big number at that level of seniority) and also the firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year, which I never see being discussed anywhere but it's a big deal as far as all-in comp. over time. It adds up at the end of the day, maybe you're making 50, 75, 100k more than your equivalent associate peers, but let's not get nuts and think NSPs are making 700k out the gate. Maybe the situation is different for a few outlier superstar NSPs who are pre-destined to make SP or else for so-called "permanent" NSPs (which is basically of counsel for the 21st c.) but I know less about either of those situations.

Your info about the 401k contribution is wrong. The full contribution is $36,500, and KE only gives you half of that in a lump sum the January AFTER your second full year as an NSP, and then it ratchets up the following year. It's basically a slightly larger bonus after two years as an NSP. After paying the full premium for my health insurance (KE doesn't subsidize NSPs and has a garbage healthcare plan, I was paying $790/month for a high deductible plan for just myself when I left), paying my own payroll tax (you're self-employed), and paying income tax in other states (because you're technically part of the partnership even though you don't share in profits), I made less as a first-year NSP than I made the previous year as an associate.

To put a finer point on it -- my total pre-tax income was $35k higher than the prior year as a first year NSP and my take-home was $25k lower than the prior year. It's a paycut, at least at first.

[Anonymous User]

KE anon. The OP seems to have bounced because of the drama. A lot of the info he was referencing was accurate and he knew things that people outside of KE shouldn't be aware of. I suspect it was an actual SP or worst case an NSP with a tight line to an in-the-know SP. Either way some of the comments here were lousy and it was a blown opportunity to get more info.

Also, saw a comment a few pages back asking if it's true that NSPs start at 650-700k. LMFAO no. The firm tries to keep NSP base comp roughly at industry scale. The biggest difference is the bonus will be better than your peers by some multiplier like 1.3x or 1.7x (which can become a big number at that level of seniority) and also the firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year, which I never see being discussed anywhere but it's a big deal as far as all-in comp. over time. It adds up at the end of the day, maybe you're making 50, 75, 100k more than your equivalent associate peers, but let's not get nuts and think NSPs are making 700k out the gate. Maybe the situation is different for a few outlier superstar NSPs who are pre-destined to make SP or else for so-called "permanent" NSPs (which is basically of counsel for the 21st c.) but I know less about either of those situations.

Your info about the 401k contribution is wrong. The full contribution is $36,500, and KE only gives you half of that in a lump sum the January AFTER your second full year as an NSP, and then it ratchets up the following year. It's basically a slightly larger bonus after two years as an NSP. After paying the full premium for my health insurance (KE doesn't subsidize NSPs and has a garbage healthcare plan, I was paying $790/month for a high deductible plan for just myself when I left), paying my own payroll tax (you're self-employed), and paying income tax in other states (because you're technically part of the partnership even though you don't share in profits), I made less as a first-year NSP than I made the previous year as an associate.

To put a finer point on it -- my total pre-tax income was $35k higher than the prior year as a first year NSP and my take-home was $25k lower than the prior year. It's a paycut, at least at first.

This is great info and hasn't really been covered in the past when this has come up, so huge thanks for taking the time to share it. The lack of benefit plan subsidy, self-employment tax and other state income tax sound like a real drag. But your last sentence seems to suggest that it may only be an initial paycut. Are NSPs getting a bump in comp each year similar to associates (as in $15-30k salary raise or more each year)?

[Anonymous User]

what do you think EOY bonuses will be like?

[Anonymous User]

KE anon. The OP seems to have bounced because of the drama. A lot of the info he was referencing was accurate and he knew things that people outside of KE shouldn't be aware of. I suspect it was an actual SP or worst case an NSP with a tight line to an in-the-know SP. Either way some of the comments here were lousy and it was a blown opportunity to get more info.

Also, saw a comment a few pages back asking if it's true that NSPs start at 650-700k. LMFAO no. The firm tries to keep NSP base comp roughly at industry scale. The biggest difference is the bonus will be better than your peers by some multiplier like 1.3x or 1.7x (which can become a big number at that level of seniority) and also the firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year, which I never see being discussed anywhere but it's a big deal as far as all-in comp. over time. It adds up at the end of the day, maybe you're making 50, 75, 100k more than your equivalent associate peers, but let's not get nuts and think NSPs are making 700k out the gate. Maybe the situation is different for a few outlier superstar NSPs who are pre-destined to make SP or else for so-called "permanent" NSPs (which is basically of counsel for the 21st c.) but I know less about either of those situations.

Your info about the 401k contribution is wrong. The full contribution is $36,500, and KE only gives you half of that in a lump sum the January AFTER your second full year as an NSP, and then it ratchets up the following year. It's basically a slightly larger bonus after two years as an NSP. After paying the full premium for my health insurance (KE doesn't subsidize NSPs and has a garbage healthcare plan, I was paying $790/month for a high deductible plan for just myself when I left), paying my own payroll tax (you're self-employed), and paying income tax in other states (because you're technically part of the partnership even though you don't share in profits), I made less as a first-year NSP than I made the previous year as an associate.

To put a finer point on it -- my total pre-tax income was $35k higher than the prior year as a first year NSP and my take-home was $25k lower than the prior year. It's a paycut, at least at first.

This is great info and hasn't really been covered in the past when this has come up, so huge thanks for taking the time to share it. The lack of benefit plan subsidy, self-employment tax and other state income tax sound like a real drag. But your last sentence seems to suggest that it may only be an initial paycut. Are NSPs getting a bump in comp each year similar to associates (as in $15-30k salary raise or more each year)?

Yes, NSPs in good standing get bumps every year, but it's a black box. If you're on the path to shares or they make you a permanent NSP, the bumps can be much higher than the $10-30k raises. If you're not, they're in that range. Given the individualization in bonuses and raises it's hard to make sweeping statements. The closest I can come is that if your total comp as an NSP is equal to a senior associate, you're making less than that senior associate. If it's less than $50k greater, you're probably still making less. If it's more than that, the extra cash makes up for the extra expenses.

[Anonymous User]

I'm an NSP and am off-grid but with limited visibility on prospects for shares. It is so opaque and very arbitrary as to who gets shares. In many ways being an NSP is much worse than being an associate.

[Anonymous User]

KE anon. The OP seems to have bounced because of the drama. A lot of the info he was referencing was accurate and he knew things that people outside of KE shouldn't be aware of. I suspect it was an actual SP or worst case an NSP with a tight line to an in-the-know SP. Either way some of the comments here were lousy and it was a blown opportunity to get more info.

Also, saw a comment a few pages back asking if it's true that NSPs start at 650-700k. LMFAO no. The firm tries to keep NSP base comp roughly at industry scale. The biggest difference is the bonus will be better than your peers by some multiplier like 1.3x or 1.7x (which can become a big number at that level of seniority) and also the firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year, which I never see being discussed anywhere but it's a big deal as far as all-in comp. over time. It adds up at the end of the day, maybe you're making 50, 75, 100k more than your equivalent associate peers, but let's not get nuts and think NSPs are making 700k out the gate. Maybe the situation is different for a few outlier superstar NSPs who are pre-destined to make SP or else for so-called "permanent" NSPs (which is basically of counsel for the 21st c.) but I know less about either of those situations.

Your info about the 401k contribution is wrong. The full contribution is $36,500, and KE only gives you half of that in a lump sum the January AFTER your second full year as an NSP, and then it ratchets up the following year. It's basically a slightly larger bonus after two years as an NSP. After paying the full premium for my health insurance (KE doesn't subsidize NSPs and has a garbage healthcare plan, I was paying $790/month for a high deductible plan for just myself when I left), paying my own payroll tax (you're self-employed), and paying income tax in other states (because you're technically part of the partnership even though you don't share in profits), I made less as a first-year NSP than I made the previous year as an associate.

To put a finer point on it -- my total pre-tax income was $35k higher than the prior year as a first year NSP and my take-home was $25k lower than the prior year. It's a paycut, at least at first.

Such a KE comment lol chill out. My "info" is direct experience. Yes your first NSP year it's a ~20k contribution then it bumps to 40k. I'm using approximate values -- it's going to go up over time as the max 401k contribution limit increases anyway.

It's true your first as an NSP you're likely to make less all-in than you did your last year as a senior associate (6th year) because of the tax + insurance hits as you mention. But having been through this process for what sounds like longer than you, trust me that soon you'll break away from the market and it will become meaningful; the 6th year to 1st NSP is a rough transition and a bit deflating (because it's a black box some people think being "NSP" magically means you suddenly make 500k and that's not the case). But again, it improves markedly with time.

[Anonymous User]

What percentage of associates roughly make non-equity partner? And what percentage of non-equity partners make equity?

Over half of the 6th year class gets the bump to NSP.

Of the NSPs that last at least 4-5 years, around 1 in 4 make it.

Do all NSPs wait 4-5 years to be promoted to shares? What’s the shortest amount of time that you’ve seen a KE associate stay at the NSP level before getting bumped to partner?

Do you think that it’s easier to make SP if you’re a lateral (vs a homegrown ke associate)?

[Anonymous User]

KE anon. The OP seems to have bounced because of the drama. A lot of the info he was referencing was accurate and he knew things that people outside of KE shouldn't be aware of. I suspect it was an actual SP or worst case an NSP with a tight line to an in-the-know SP. Either way some of the comments here were lousy and it was a blown opportunity to get more info.

Also, saw a comment a few pages back asking if it's true that NSPs start at 650-700k. LMFAO no. The firm tries to keep NSP base comp roughly at industry scale. The biggest difference is the bonus will be better than your peers by some multiplier like 1.3x or 1.7x (which can become a big number at that level of seniority) and also the firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year, which I never see being discussed anywhere but it's a big deal as far as all-in comp. over time. It adds up at the end of the day, maybe you're making 50, 75, 100k more than your equivalent associate peers, but let's not get nuts and think NSPs are making 700k out the gate. Maybe the situation is different for a few outlier superstar NSPs who are pre-destined to make SP or else for so-called "permanent" NSPs (which is basically of counsel for the 21st c.) but I know less about either of those situations.

Your info about the 401k contribution is wrong. The full contribution is $36,500, and KE only gives you half of that in a lump sum the January AFTER your second full year as an NSP, and then it ratchets up the following year. It's basically a slightly larger bonus after two years as an NSP. After paying the full premium for my health insurance (KE doesn't subsidize NSPs and has a garbage healthcare plan, I was paying $790/month for a high deductible plan for just myself when I left), paying my own payroll tax (you're self-employed), and paying income tax in other states (because you're technically part of the partnership even though you don't share in profits), I made less as a first-year NSP than I made the previous year as an associate.

To put a finer point on it -- my total pre-tax income was $35k higher than the prior year as a first year NSP and my take-home was $25k lower than the prior year. It's a paycut, at least at first.

Such a KE comment lol chill out. Yes your first NSP year it's a ~20k contribution then it bumps to 40k. I'm using approximate values -- it's going to go up over time as the max 401k contribution limit increases anyway.

It's true your first as an NSP you're likely to make less all-in than you did your last year as a senior associate (6th year). But having been through this process for what sounds like longer than you, trust me that soon you'll break away from the market and it will become meaningful; the 6th year to 1st NSP is a rough transition and a bit deflating (because it's a black box some people think being "NSP" magically means you suddenly make 500k and that's not the case). But again, it improves markedly with time.

I didn't realize that trying to provide accurate info isn't chill. "[T]he firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year" is simply not accurate, and many NSPs leave in the years before this becomes relevant to them.

Like I said in my later post, yes, if you're on the path to shares or become a perma-NSP, you can do very well. If you're not, you're likely making less than or the same as people your class at other top firms.

[Anonymous User]

KE anon. The OP seems to have bounced because of the drama. A lot of the info he was referencing was accurate and he knew things that people outside of KE shouldn't be aware of. I suspect it was an actual SP or worst case an NSP with a tight line to an in-the-know SP. Either way some of the comments here were lousy and it was a blown opportunity to get more info.

Also, saw a comment a few pages back asking if it's true that NSPs start at 650-700k. LMFAO no. The firm tries to keep NSP base comp roughly at industry scale. The biggest difference is the bonus will be better than your peers by some multiplier like 1.3x or 1.7x (which can become a big number at that level of seniority) and also the firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year, which I never see being discussed anywhere but it's a big deal as far as all-in comp. over time. It adds up at the end of the day, maybe you're making 50, 75, 100k more than your equivalent associate peers, but let's not get nuts and think NSPs are making 700k out the gate. Maybe the situation is different for a few outlier superstar NSPs who are pre-destined to make SP or else for so-called "permanent" NSPs (which is basically of counsel for the 21st c.) but I know less about either of those situations.

Your info about the 401k contribution is wrong. The full contribution is $36,500, and KE only gives you half of that in a lump sum the January AFTER your second full year as an NSP, and then it ratchets up the following year. It's basically a slightly larger bonus after two years as an NSP. After paying the full premium for my health insurance (KE doesn't subsidize NSPs and has a garbage healthcare plan, I was paying $790/month for a high deductible plan for just myself when I left), paying my own payroll tax (you're self-employed), and paying income tax in other states (because you're technically part of the partnership even though you don't share in profits), I made less as a first-year NSP than I made the previous year as an associate.

To put a finer point on it -- my total pre-tax income was $35k higher than the prior year as a first year NSP and my take-home was $25k lower than the prior year. It's a paycut, at least at first.

Such a KE comment lol chill out. Yes your first NSP year it's a ~20k contribution then it bumps to 40k. I'm using approximate values -- it's going to go up over time as the max 401k contribution limit increases anyway.

It's true your first as an NSP you're likely to make less all-in than you did your last year as a senior associate (6th year). But having been through this process for what sounds like longer than you, trust me that soon you'll break away from the market and it will become meaningful; the 6th year to 1st NSP is a rough transition and a bit deflating (because it's a black box some people think being "NSP" magically means you suddenly make 500k and that's not the case). But again, it improves markedly with time.

I didn't realize that trying to provide accurate info isn't chill. "[T]he firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year" is simply not accurate, and many NSPs leave in the years before this becomes relevant to them.

Like I said in my later post, yes, if you're on the path to shares or become a perma-NSP, you can do very well. If you're not, you're likely making less than or the same as people your class at other top firms.

This is a stupid thing to bicker about in classic TLS fashion; let's move on. You seem perturbed about your NSP comp. I get it -- I was basically in your shoes my first year as an NSP particularly because there was less good info out there when I made it so there was a lot more shock value for me I think than a baby NSP in 2021 -- you think "wow, maybe I'm going to suddenly be making $$$x!" and you realize you're actually worse off vs. your 6th year. Like I said, you breakaway fast though. If you bounce 12 months after becoming an NSP you may think the whole thing is a raw deal but within another year or two you're making significantly more than mkt. -- the bonus multiplier + the 401k kick-in really start to add up, even for "ordinary" NSPs who aren't necessarily slotted for SP.

[Anonymous User]

What percentage of associates roughly make non-equity partner? And what percentage of non-equity partners make equity?

Over half of the 6th year class gets the bump to NSP.

Of the NSPs that last at least 4-5 years, around 1 in 4 make it.

Do all NSPs wait 4-5 years to be promoted to shares? What’s the shortest amount of time that you’ve seen a KE associate stay at the NSP level before getting bumped to partner?

Do you think that it’s easier to make SP if you’re a lateral (vs a homegrown ke associate)?

The old-school way at KE was you're first up for shares at your 10th year review and then you had 2-3 shots at it depending on market conditions and practice group; if you didn't make it by your third shot you were typically asked to exit. When I say old school I mean like 25 years ago.

The entire timetable has been generally elongated. I know for a fact there are certain NSPs who weren't considered for shares until 15 years which sounds insane but is becoming increasingly common -- they're dragging everything out and messaging the same to people, i.e., it's a long slog until you'll be considered for shares. This is causing a lot of internal grumbling and at least in my practice group we've seen a lot of exits in the past 12 months including NSPs going elsewhere to get equity because they weren't going to wait another x years.

On the other side of the coin yes, there are stories of "pets" / "superstars" getting equity on an accelerated track e.g., as a 9th year for some compelling reason. You tend to know who these people are and it's very rare and only done for a significant business case.

Finally, KE likes to give equity to laterals in the last 10 years. It's becoming increasingly harder to get equity as homegrown talent; it's hurting morale (why am I going to work so hard for 14 years when they'll just slot me as a permanent NSP and give shares to people they poach from other firms) but it's obviously not hurting the business.

[Anonymous User]

Hypothetically speaking, how much comp would a "permanent" NSP (maybe 10-12 years of experience) be getting? (Ballpark figure is okay because I understand it's a black box.)

[Anonymous User]

Hypothetically speaking, how much comp would a "permanent" NSP (maybe 10-12 years of experience) be getting?

I'd also love to know this. This is hard info to come by. It's almost certainly going to be individualized but I'd be curious just to know generally if you make more or less than more junior NSPs who are considered still theoretically "in the running" and also what sort of comp. arrangements they come up with -- do they allow you to collect a portion of your revenue above a certain hour threshold like old-school of counsel agreements? What's the bonus situation like? Are there any guarantees of stability or are you still potentially on the chopping block each yearly review? It would take deep inside info to get this level of detail though.

[Anonymous User]

KE anon. The OP seems to have bounced because of the drama. A lot of the info he was referencing was accurate and he knew things that people outside of KE shouldn't be aware of. I suspect it was an actual SP or worst case an NSP with a tight line to an in-the-know SP. Either way some of the comments here were lousy and it was a blown opportunity to get more info.

Also, saw a comment a few pages back asking if it's true that NSPs start at 650-700k. LMFAO no. The firm tries to keep NSP base comp roughly at industry scale. The biggest difference is the bonus will be better than your peers by some multiplier like 1.3x or 1.7x (which can become a big number at that level of seniority) and also the firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year, which I never see being discussed anywhere but it's a big deal as far as all-in comp. over time. It adds up at the end of the day, maybe you're making 50, 75, 100k more than your equivalent associate peers, but let's not get nuts and think NSPs are making 700k out the gate. Maybe the situation is different for a few outlier superstar NSPs who are pre-destined to make SP or else for so-called "permanent" NSPs (which is basically of counsel for the 21st c.) but I know less about either of those situations.

Your info about the 401k contribution is wrong. The full contribution is $36,500, and KE only gives you half of that in a lump sum the January AFTER your second full year as an NSP, and then it ratchets up the following year. It's basically a slightly larger bonus after two years as an NSP. After paying the full premium for my health insurance (KE doesn't subsidize NSPs and has a garbage healthcare plan, I was paying $790/month for a high deductible plan for just myself when I left), paying my own payroll tax (you're self-employed), and paying income tax in other states (because you're technically part of the partnership even though you don't share in profits), I made less as a first-year NSP than I made the previous year as an associate.

To put a finer point on it -- my total pre-tax income was $35k higher than the prior year as a first year NSP and my take-home was $25k lower than the prior year. It's a paycut, at least at first.

Such a KE comment lol chill out. Yes your first NSP year it's a ~20k contribution then it bumps to 40k. I'm using approximate values -- it's going to go up over time as the max 401k contribution limit increases anyway.

It's true your first as an NSP you're likely to make less all-in than you did your last year as a senior associate (6th year). But having been through this process for what sounds like longer than you, trust me that soon you'll break away from the market and it will become meaningful; the 6th year to 1st NSP is a rough transition and a bit deflating (because it's a black box some people think being "NSP" magically means you suddenly make 500k and that's not the case). But again, it improves markedly with time.

I didn't realize that trying to provide accurate info isn't chill. "[T]he firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year" is simply not accurate, and many NSPs leave in the years before this becomes relevant to them.

Like I said in my later post, yes, if you're on the path to shares or become a perma-NSP, you can do very well. If you're not, you're likely making less than or the same as people your class at other top firms.

This is a stupid thing to bicker about in classic TLS fashion; let's move on. You seem perturbed about your NSP comp. I get it -- I was basically in your shoes my first year as an NSP particularly because there was less good info out there when I made it so there was a lot more shock value for me I think than a baby NSP in 2021 -- you think "wow, maybe I'm going to suddenly be making $$$x!" and you realize you're actually worse off vs. your 6th year. Like I said, you breakaway fast though. If you bounce 12 months after becoming an NSP you may think the whole thing is a raw deal but within another year or two you're making significantly more than mkt. -- the bonus multiplier + the 401k kick-in really start to add up, even for "ordinary" NSPs who aren't necessarily slotted for SP.

I'm not bickering, I'm just correcting the incorrect things that you've said. Given that you haven't disputed the substance of anything I've said, you calling me "perturbed" reeks of projection. I could not have been happier with my comp overall -- Kirkland paid me an enormous amount of money in my time there, certainly more in total than I would have made at virtually any other firm. But that doesn't change the fact that your first year as an NSP is a pay cut from your prior year's pay, and years 2-3 could very well also be a pay cut compared to your peers at other firms depending on bonuses and your future at the firm. If your bonus multiplier is on the low end, say 1.3x, it's not making up the difference in taxes and insurance.

[Anonymous User]

KE anon. The OP seems to have bounced because of the drama. A lot of the info he was referencing was accurate and he knew things that people outside of KE shouldn't be aware of. I suspect it was an actual SP or worst case an NSP with a tight line to an in-the-know SP. Either way some of the comments here were lousy and it was a blown opportunity to get more info.

Also, saw a comment a few pages back asking if it's true that NSPs start at 650-700k. LMFAO no. The firm tries to keep NSP base comp roughly at industry scale. The biggest difference is the bonus will be better than your peers by some multiplier like 1.3x or 1.7x (which can become a big number at that level of seniority) and also the firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year, which I never see being discussed anywhere but it's a big deal as far as all-in comp. over time. It adds up at the end of the day, maybe you're making 50, 75, 100k more than your equivalent associate peers, but let's not get nuts and think NSPs are making 700k out the gate. Maybe the situation is different for a few outlier superstar NSPs who are pre-destined to make SP or else for so-called "permanent" NSPs (which is basically of counsel for the 21st c.) but I know less about either of those situations.

Your info about the 401k contribution is wrong. The full contribution is $36,500, and KE only gives you half of that in a lump sum the January AFTER your second full year as an NSP, and then it ratchets up the following year. It's basically a slightly larger bonus after two years as an NSP. After paying the full premium for my health insurance (KE doesn't subsidize NSPs and has a garbage healthcare plan, I was paying $790/month for a high deductible plan for just myself when I left), paying my own payroll tax (you're self-employed), and paying income tax in other states (because you're technically part of the partnership even though you don't share in profits), I made less as a first-year NSP than I made the previous year as an associate.

To put a finer point on it -- my total pre-tax income was $35k higher than the prior year as a first year NSP and my take-home was $25k lower than the prior year. It's a paycut, at least at first.

Such a KE comment lol chill out. Yes your first NSP year it's a ~20k contribution then it bumps to 40k. I'm using approximate values -- it's going to go up over time as the max 401k contribution limit increases anyway.

It's true your first as an NSP you're likely to make less all-in than you did your last year as a senior associate (6th year). But having been through this process for what sounds like longer than you, trust me that soon you'll break away from the market and it will become meaningful; the 6th year to 1st NSP is a rough transition and a bit deflating (because it's a black box some people think being "NSP" magically means you suddenly make 500k and that's not the case). But again, it improves markedly with time.

I didn't realize that trying to provide accurate info isn't chill. "[T]he firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year" is simply not accurate, and many NSPs leave in the years before this becomes relevant to them.

Like I said in my later post, yes, if you're on the path to shares or become a perma-NSP, you can do very well. If you're not, you're likely making less than or the same as people your class at other top firms.

This is a stupid thing to bicker about in classic TLS fashion; let's move on. You seem perturbed about your NSP comp. I get it -- I was basically in your shoes my first year as an NSP particularly because there was less good info out there when I made it so there was a lot more shock value for me I think than a baby NSP in 2021 -- you think "wow, maybe I'm going to suddenly be making $$$x!" and you realize you're actually worse off vs. your 6th year. Like I said, you breakaway fast though. If you bounce 12 months after becoming an NSP you may think the whole thing is a raw deal but within another year or two you're making significantly more than mkt. -- the bonus multiplier + the 401k kick-in really start to add up, even for "ordinary" NSPs who aren't necessarily slotted for SP.

I'm not bickering, I'm just correcting the incorrect things that you've said. Given that you haven't disputed the substance of anything I've said, you calling me "perturbed" reeks of projection. I could not have been happier with my comp overall -- Kirkland paid me an enormous amount of money in my time there, certainly more in total than I would have made at virtually any other firm. But that doesn't change the fact that your first year as an NSP is a pay cut from your prior year's pay, and years 2-3 could very well also be a pay cut compared to your peers at other firms depending on bonuses and your future at the firm. If your bonus multiplier is on the low end, say 1.3x, it's not making up the difference in taxes and insurance.

You continue to beat this dead horse. You're not "correcting" anything you're being pedantic. You aren't materially affecting the information I already conveyed by noting in Comic Book Guy fashion that it's ackshually 36,500 not 40,000 that gets thrown into the 401k (and anyway it will be 40k soon enough as the limits increase). I don't have any projection here. I do have another case of being reminded why I only come here sporadically to avoid this sort of waste of time internet debating that some people here seem to get off on.

It is highly unlikely that you'll be making less than your peers if you are an NSP beyond your first full year. As you've already noted, by your second year, you're getting the full 401k contribution of ~40k and then you get the bonus multiplier. Even if you're a bog-standard NSP billing 2,000 hours you'll get something like a 1.2x, 1.3x and maybe more depending on your practice group but let's go with 1.2x to be super conservative. So off of a 100k base that means you're getting an extra ~20k on a bonus + 40k on a 401k kick-in, which puts you 60k ahead of your equivalent at Skadden or Cravath or wherever. You're already breaking ahead of them even with the loss of the social security and health insurance kick-ins. Point of fact most NSPs are getting way more than that and it happens fast if you're willing to hang around for a few years (this year I'll easily break 600k).

TL;DR: You're being a pedant; your first year as an NSP is admittedly a surprise because of the lack of health insurance supplement (mostly; they still supplement a bit years 1 and 2) and double social security hit; you break ahead of the market by your second year as an NSP and it keeps growing after that

[Anonymous User]

For 1Ls - check out this thread if you want to get a sense of Kirkland "culture"

[Anonymous User]

KE anon. The OP seems to have bounced because of the drama. A lot of the info he was referencing was accurate and he knew things that people outside of KE shouldn't be aware of. I suspect it was an actual SP or worst case an NSP with a tight line to an in-the-know SP. Either way some of the comments here were lousy and it was a blown opportunity to get more info.

Also, saw a comment a few pages back asking if it's true that NSPs start at 650-700k. LMFAO no. The firm tries to keep NSP base comp roughly at industry scale. The biggest difference is the bonus will be better than your peers by some multiplier like 1.3x or 1.7x (which can become a big number at that level of seniority) and also the firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year, which I never see being discussed anywhere but it's a big deal as far as all-in comp. over time. It adds up at the end of the day, maybe you're making 50, 75, 100k more than your equivalent associate peers, but let's not get nuts and think NSPs are making 700k out the gate. Maybe the situation is different for a few outlier superstar NSPs who are pre-destined to make SP or else for so-called "permanent" NSPs (which is basically of counsel for the 21st c.) but I know less about either of those situations.

Your info about the 401k contribution is wrong. The full contribution is $36,500, and KE only gives you half of that in a lump sum the January AFTER your second full year as an NSP, and then it ratchets up the following year. It's basically a slightly larger bonus after two years as an NSP. After paying the full premium for my health insurance (KE doesn't subsidize NSPs and has a garbage healthcare plan, I was paying $790/month for a high deductible plan for just myself when I left), paying my own payroll tax (you're self-employed), and paying income tax in other states (because you're technically part of the partnership even though you don't share in profits), I made less as a first-year NSP than I made the previous year as an associate.

To put a finer point on it -- my total pre-tax income was $35k higher than the prior year as a first year NSP and my take-home was $25k lower than the prior year. It's a paycut, at least at first.

Such a KE comment lol chill out. Yes your first NSP year it's a ~20k contribution then it bumps to 40k. I'm using approximate values -- it's going to go up over time as the max 401k contribution limit increases anyway.

It's true your first as an NSP you're likely to make less all-in than you did your last year as a senior associate (6th year). But having been through this process for what sounds like longer than you, trust me that soon you'll break away from the market and it will become meaningful; the 6th year to 1st NSP is a rough transition and a bit deflating (because it's a black box some people think being "NSP" magically means you suddenly make 500k and that's not the case). But again, it improves markedly with time.

I didn't realize that trying to provide accurate info isn't chill. "[T]he firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year" is simply not accurate, and many NSPs leave in the years before this becomes relevant to them.

Like I said in my later post, yes, if you're on the path to shares or become a perma-NSP, you can do very well. If you're not, you're likely making less than or the same as people your class at other top firms.

This is a stupid thing to bicker about in classic TLS fashion; let's move on. You seem perturbed about your NSP comp. I get it -- I was basically in your shoes my first year as an NSP particularly because there was less good info out there when I made it so there was a lot more shock value for me I think than a baby NSP in 2021 -- you think "wow, maybe I'm going to suddenly be making $$$x!" and you realize you're actually worse off vs. your 6th year. Like I said, you breakaway fast though. If you bounce 12 months after becoming an NSP you may think the whole thing is a raw deal but within another year or two you're making significantly more than mkt. -- the bonus multiplier + the 401k kick-in really start to add up, even for "ordinary" NSPs who aren't necessarily slotted for SP.

I'm not bickering, I'm just correcting the incorrect things that you've said. Given that you haven't disputed the substance of anything I've said, you calling me "perturbed" reeks of projection. I could not have been happier with my comp overall -- Kirkland paid me an enormous amount of money in my time there, certainly more in total than I would have made at virtually any other firm. But that doesn't change the fact that your first year as an NSP is a pay cut from your prior year's pay, and years 2-3 could very well also be a pay cut compared to your peers at other firms depending on bonuses and your future at the firm. If your bonus multiplier is on the low end, say 1.3x, it's not making up the difference in taxes and insurance.

You continue to beat this dead horse. You're not "correcting" anything you're being pedantic. You aren't materially affecting the information I already conveyed by noting in Comic Book Guy fashion that it's ackshually 36,500 not 40,000 that gets thrown into the 401k (and anyway it will be 40k soon enough as the limits increase). I don't have any projection here. I do have another case of being reminded why I only come here sporadically to avoid this sort of waste of time internet debating that some people here seem to get off on.

It is highly unlikely that you'll be making less than your peers if you are an NSP beyond your first full year. As you've already noted, by your second year, you're getting the full 401k contribution of ~40k and then you get the bonus multiplier. Even if you're a bog-standard NSP billing 2,000 hours you'll get something like a 1.2x, 1.3x and maybe more depending on your practice group but let's go with 1.2x to be super conservative. So off of a 100k base that means you're getting an extra ~20k on a bonus + 40k on a 401k kick-in, which puts you 60k ahead of your equivalent at Skadden or Cravath or wherever. You're already breaking ahead of them even with the loss of the social security and health insurance kick-ins. Point of fact most NSPs are getting way more than that and it happens fast if you're willing to hang around for a few years (this year I'll easily break 600k).

TL;DR: You're being a pedant; your first year as an NSP is admittedly a surprise because of the lack of health insurance supplement (mostly; they still supplement a bit years 1 and 2) and double social security hit; you break ahead of the market by your second year as an NSP and it keeps growing after that

I thought you wanted to move on? If you want to call being right being pedantic, go for it, I'll be over here getting off on being right.

[Anonymous User]

Your info about the 401k contribution is wrong. The full contribution is $36,500, and KE only gives you half of that in a lump sum the January AFTER your second full year as an NSP, and then it ratchets up the following year. It's basically a slightly larger bonus after two years as an NSP. After paying the full premium for my health insurance (KE doesn't subsidize NSPs and has a garbage healthcare plan, I was paying $790/month for a high deductible plan for just myself when I left), paying my own payroll tax (you're self-employed), and paying income tax in other states (because you're technically part of the partnership even though you don't share in profits), I made less as a first-year NSP than I made the previous year as an associate.

To put a finer point on it -- my total pre-tax income was $35k higher than the prior year as a first year NSP and my take-home was $25k lower than the prior year. It's a paycut, at least at first.

Such a KE comment lol chill out. Yes your first NSP year it's a ~20k contribution then it bumps to 40k. I'm using approximate values -- it's going to go up over time as the max 401k contribution limit increases anyway.

It's true your first as an NSP you're likely to make less all-in than you did your last year as a senior associate (6th year). But having been through this process for what sounds like longer than you, trust me that soon you'll break away from the market and it will become meaningful; the 6th year to 1st NSP is a rough transition and a bit deflating (because it's a black box some people think being "NSP" magically means you suddenly make 500k and that's not the case). But again, it improves markedly with time.

I didn't realize that trying to provide accurate info isn't chill. "[T]he firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year" is simply not accurate, and many NSPs leave in the years before this becomes relevant to them.

Like I said in my later post, yes, if you're on the path to shares or become a perma-NSP, you can do very well. If you're not, you're likely making less than or the same as people your class at other top firms.

This is a stupid thing to bicker about in classic TLS fashion; let's move on. You seem perturbed about your NSP comp. I get it -- I was basically in your shoes my first year as an NSP particularly because there was less good info out there when I made it so there was a lot more shock value for me I think than a baby NSP in 2021 -- you think "wow, maybe I'm going to suddenly be making $$$x!" and you realize you're actually worse off vs. your 6th year. Like I said, you breakaway fast though. If you bounce 12 months after becoming an NSP you may think the whole thing is a raw deal but within another year or two you're making significantly more than mkt. -- the bonus multiplier + the 401k kick-in really start to add up, even for "ordinary" NSPs who aren't necessarily slotted for SP.

I'm not bickering, I'm just correcting the incorrect things that you've said. Given that you haven't disputed the substance of anything I've said, you calling me "perturbed" reeks of projection. I could not have been happier with my comp overall -- Kirkland paid me an enormous amount of money in my time there, certainly more in total than I would have made at virtually any other firm. But that doesn't change the fact that your first year as an NSP is a pay cut from your prior year's pay, and years 2-3 could very well also be a pay cut compared to your peers at other firms depending on bonuses and your future at the firm. If your bonus multiplier is on the low end, say 1.3x, it's not making up the difference in taxes and insurance.

You continue to beat this dead horse. You're not "correcting" anything you're being pedantic. You aren't materially affecting the information I already conveyed by noting in Comic Book Guy fashion that it's ackshually 36,500 not 40,000 that gets thrown into the 401k (and anyway it will be 40k soon enough as the limits increase). I don't have any projection here. I do have another case of being reminded why I only come here sporadically to avoid this sort of waste of time internet debating that some people here seem to get off on.

It is highly unlikely that you'll be making less than your peers if you are an NSP beyond your first full year. As you've already noted, by your second year, you're getting the full 401k contribution of ~40k and then you get the bonus multiplier. Even if you're a bog-standard NSP billing 2,000 hours you'll get something like a 1.2x, 1.3x and maybe more depending on your practice group but let's go with 1.2x to be super conservative. So off of a 100k base that means you're getting an extra ~20k on a bonus + 40k on a 401k kick-in, which puts you 60k ahead of your equivalent at Skadden or Cravath or wherever. You're already breaking ahead of them even with the loss of the social security and health insurance kick-ins. Point of fact most NSPs are getting way more than that and it happens fast if you're willing to hang around for a few years (this year I'll easily break 600k).

TL;DR: You're being a pedant; your first year as an NSP is admittedly a surprise because of the lack of health insurance supplement (mostly; they still supplement a bit years 1 and 2) and double social security hit; you break ahead of the market by your second year as an NSP and it keeps growing after that

I thought you wanted to move on? If you want to call being right being pedantic, go for it, I'll be over here getting off on being right.

I definitely don't want to waste further time with you since you're clearly now just arguing to argue and this is exactly the sort of behavior that chased away the original SP (or highly connected NSP LARPing as an SP) OP. I'll be happy to engage others on substance to try to keep this thread useful.

[Anonymous User]

Such a KE comment lol chill out. Yes your first NSP year it's a ~20k contribution then it bumps to 40k. I'm using approximate values -- it's going to go up over time as the max 401k contribution limit increases anyway.

It's true your first as an NSP you're likely to make less all-in than you did your last year as a senior associate (6th year). But having been through this process for what sounds like longer than you, trust me that soon you'll break away from the market and it will become meaningful; the 6th year to 1st NSP is a rough transition and a bit deflating (because it's a black box some people think being "NSP" magically means you suddenly make 500k and that's not the case). But again, it improves markedly with time.

I didn't realize that trying to provide accurate info isn't chill. "[T]he firm kicks in another ~40k to your 401k on top of the bonus each year" is simply not accurate, and many NSPs leave in the years before this becomes relevant to them.

Like I said in my later post, yes, if you're on the path to shares or become a perma-NSP, you can do very well. If you're not, you're likely making less than or the same as people your class at other top firms.

This is a stupid thing to bicker about in classic TLS fashion; let's move on. You seem perturbed about your NSP comp. I get it -- I was basically in your shoes my first year as an NSP particularly because there was less good info out there when I made it so there was a lot more shock value for me I think than a baby NSP in 2021 -- you think "wow, maybe I'm going to suddenly be making $$$x!" and you realize you're actually worse off vs. your 6th year. Like I said, you breakaway fast though. If you bounce 12 months after becoming an NSP you may think the whole thing is a raw deal but within another year or two you're making significantly more than mkt. -- the bonus multiplier + the 401k kick-in really start to add up, even for "ordinary" NSPs who aren't necessarily slotted for SP.

I'm not bickering, I'm just correcting the incorrect things that you've said. Given that you haven't disputed the substance of anything I've said, you calling me "perturbed" reeks of projection. I could not have been happier with my comp overall -- Kirkland paid me an enormous amount of money in my time there, certainly more in total than I would have made at virtually any other firm. But that doesn't change the fact that your first year as an NSP is a pay cut from your prior year's pay, and years 2-3 could very well also be a pay cut compared to your peers at other firms depending on bonuses and your future at the firm. If your bonus multiplier is on the low end, say 1.3x, it's not making up the difference in taxes and insurance.

You continue to beat this dead horse. You're not "correcting" anything you're being pedantic. You aren't materially affecting the information I already conveyed by noting in Comic Book Guy fashion that it's ackshually 36,500 not 40,000 that gets thrown into the 401k (and anyway it will be 40k soon enough as the limits increase). I don't have any projection here. I do have another case of being reminded why I only come here sporadically to avoid this sort of waste of time internet debating that some people here seem to get off on.

It is highly unlikely that you'll be making less than your peers if you are an NSP beyond your first full year. As you've already noted, by your second year, you're getting the full 401k contribution of ~40k and then you get the bonus multiplier. Even if you're a bog-standard NSP billing 2,000 hours you'll get something like a 1.2x, 1.3x and maybe more depending on your practice group but let's go with 1.2x to be super conservative. So off of a 100k base that means you're getting an extra ~20k on a bonus + 40k on a 401k kick-in, which puts you 60k ahead of your equivalent at Skadden or Cravath or wherever. You're already breaking ahead of them even with the loss of the social security and health insurance kick-ins. Point of fact most NSPs are getting way more than that and it happens fast if you're willing to hang around for a few years (this year I'll easily break 600k).

TL;DR: You're being a pedant; your first year as an NSP is admittedly a surprise because of the lack of health insurance supplement (mostly; they still supplement a bit years 1 and 2) and double social security hit; you break ahead of the market by your second year as an NSP and it keeps growing after that

I thought you wanted to move on? If you want to call being right being pedantic, go for it, I'll be over here getting off on being right.

I definitely don't want to waste further time with you since you're clearly now just arguing to argue and this is exactly the sort of behavior that chased away the original SP (or highly connected NSP LARPing as an SP) OP. I'll be happy to engage others on substance to try to keep this thread useful.

Lots of clearing up of misconceptions being done in this thread!

To be clear, the SP ran off in shame due to his/her own behavior, not because of ppl on here.