Top Law Schools

Can a good Samaritan please post the list for the rest of us to dissect?

Sorry for the formatting, but here it is:

1. Kirkland & Ellis $4,154,600,000.00
2. Latham & Watkins $3,767,623,000.00
3. DLA Piper $3,112,130,000.00
4. Baker McKenzie $2,920,000,000.00
5. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom $2,632,615,000.00
6. Sidley Austin $2,337,803,000.00
7. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius $2,265,000,000.00
8. Hogan Lovells $2,246,050,000.00
9. White & Case $2,184,850,000.00
10. Jones Day $2,077,000,000.00
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $2,008,334,000.00
Norton Rose Fulbright $1,904,019,000.00
Ropes & Gray $1,903,616,000.00
Greenberg Traurig $1,641,790,000.00
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett $1,618,633,000.00
Weil, Gotshal & Manges $1,517,889,000.00
Mayer Brown $1,484,000,000.00
Sullivan & Cromwell $1,467,398,000.00
Davis Polk & Wardwell $1,444,000,000.00
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison $1,387,694,000.00
King & Spalding $1,338,607,000.00
Goodwin Procter $1,330,176,000.00
Cooley $1,329,329,000.00
Paul Hastings $1,268,910,000.00
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan $1,252,062,000.00
Reed Smith $1,246,926,000.00
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton $1,211,009,000.00
Covington & Burling $1,187,388,000.00
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr $1,184,336,000.00
McDermott Will & Emery $1,172,114,000.00
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe $1,158,537,000.00
Morrison & Foerster $1,147,200,000.00
Dechert $1,135,502,000.00
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld $1,135,014,000.00
Milbank $1,069,027,000.00
Debevoise & Plimpton $1,049,459,000.00
Squire Patton Boggs $1,035,000,000.00
Holland & Knight $1,026,809,000.00
K&L Gates $1,026,626,000.00
Winston & Strawn $1,012,310,000.00
Proskauer Rose $1,004,942,000.00
Shearman & Sterling $968,164,000.00
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati $961,000,000.00
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer $951,900,000.00
Perkins Coie $934,810,000.00
Foley & Lardner $920,427,000.00
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz $882,086,000.00
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner $869,057,000.00
Willkie Farr & Gallagher $868,000,000.00
McGuireWoods $853,505,000.00
Alston & Bird $835,865,000.00
O’Melveny & Myers $835,342,000.00
Cravath, Swaine & Moore $799,555,000.00
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton $799,139,000.00
Vinson & Elkins $792,597,000.00
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson $776,000,000.00
Hunton Andrews Kurth (2) $756,000,000.00
Baker Botts $751,070,000.00
Baker & Hostetler $732,494,000.00
Seyfarth Shaw $717,370,000.00
Fragomen $701,787,000.00
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman $677,320,000.00
Katten Muchin Rosenman $669,709,000.00
Venable $657,038,000.00
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith $642,000,000.00
Littler Mendelson $590,038,000.00
Polsinelli $580,437,000.00
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough $557,987,000.00
Fox Rothschild (2) $555,000,000.00
Troutman Sanders $549,617,000.00
Faegre Baker Daniels (1) $521,138,000.00
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart $520,099,000.00
Cozen O’Connor $517,301,000.00
Duane Morris $510,341,000.00
Nixon Peabody $505,520,000.00
Locke Lord $496,433,000.00
Jackson Lewis $486,149,000.00
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton $478,817,000.00
Womble Bond Dickinson $475,723,000.00
Blank Rome $474,010,000.00
Fish & Richardson $472,232,000.00
Fenwick & West $471,935,000.00
Barnes & Thornburg $466,740,000.00
Schulte Roth & Zabel $465,177,000.00
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo (2) $460,300,000.00
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft $459,020,000.00
Jenner & Block $448,005,000.00
Akerman $436,098,000.00
Crowell & Moring $433,364,000.00
Drinker Biddle & Reath (1) $431,075,000.00
Ballard Spahr $420,935,000.00
Davis Wright Tremaine $414,144,000.00
Boies Schiller Flexner $405,000,000.00
Haynes and Boone $404,300,000.00
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel $398,000,000.00
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani $393,140,000.00
Cahill Gordon & Reindel $387,800,000.00
Dorsey & Whitney $387,184,000.00
Steptoe & Johnson $383,267,000.00
Husch Blackwell $380,303,000.00

This really goes to show that Vault still has its advantages over the AmLaw rankings. No firm in the Vault top 30 - let alone the V10 - has announced pay cuts, salary freezes or layoffs for associates - yet 2 in the AmLaw top 10 have.

QContinuum wrote:This really goes to show that Vault still has its advantages over the AmLaw rankings. No firm in the Vault top 30 - let alone the V10 - has announced pay cuts, salary freezes or layoffs for associates - yet 2 in the AmLaw top 10 have.

And this shouldn’t be surprising, right? I mean, the amlaw 100 is literally just the top firms by revenue.

Vault is the indirect result of all the lawyers vaguely knowing how much money all the firms make and then applying a filter so that we aren’t pretending DLA Piper is a good firm.

Ultramar vistas wrote:

QContinuum wrote:This really goes to show that Vault still has its advantages over the AmLaw rankings. No firm in the Vault top 30 - let alone the V10 - has announced pay cuts, salary freezes or layoffs for associates - yet 2 in the AmLaw top 10 have.

And this shouldn’t be surprising, right? I mean, the amlaw 100 is literally just the top firms by revenue.

Vault is the indirect result of all the lawyers vaguely knowing how much money all the firms make and then applying a filter so that we aren’t pretending DLA Piper is a good firm.

I’ve always felt like the aggressive anti DLA trolling that you see from time to time is sort of baseless. Is it anywhere near number 3 if prestige is factored in? Probably not.

But it’s got its fortune 100 clients and hys grads and former fedclerks just like the rest of them, it pays lockstep market, no cuts to US associates even where like baker McKenzie is doing so aggressively. Its revenue per lawyer hovers around what like a million, which is respectable. Contrast that again with baker Mackenzie which has less revenue and way more lawyers. And yet you see relatively way more DLA hate than baker Mackenzie hate. What am I missing?

At the risk of derailing the thread just wondering why you see hate on DLA from time to time on tls...unless, here, by “good firm” you mean “top 10 prestige wise” then I suppose I hear you. But using the word “good” suggests you think it sucks.

QContinuum wrote:This really goes to show that Vault still has its advantages over the AmLaw rankings. No firm in the Vault top 30 - let alone the V10 - has announced pay cuts, salary freezes or layoffs for associates - yet 2 in the AmLaw top 10 have.

I don't know if I would go that far Q. The Vault still has a horribly flawed methodology. No one is claiming that pure revenue is a good gauge of a firm's financial health. Rather, folks should be looking at three metrics.

(1) PPP (or Profit Margin)

https://imgur.com/a/vZC5wGp

(2) RPL (which many regard as the best measure of financial health)

https://imgur.com/gallery/A3ozUJI

(3) AmLaw's "Super Rich" (which rankings both PPP and PPL)

https://imgur.com/gallery/cwgfZg1

objctnyrhnr wrote:

Ultramar vistas wrote:

QContinuum wrote:This really goes to show that Vault still has its advantages over the AmLaw rankings. No firm in the Vault top 30 - let alone the V10 - has announced pay cuts, salary freezes or layoffs for associates - yet 2 in the AmLaw top 10 have.

And this shouldn’t be surprising, right? I mean, the amlaw 100 is literally just the top firms by revenue.

Vault is the indirect result of all the lawyers vaguely knowing how much money all the firms make and then applying a filter so that we aren’t pretending DLA Piper is a good firm.

I’ve always felt like the aggressive anti DLA trolling that you see from time to time is sort of baseless. Is it anywhere near number 3 if prestige is factored in? Probably not.

But it’s got its fortune 100 clients and hys grads and former fedclerks just like the rest of them, it pays lockstep market, no cuts to US associates even where like baker McKenzie is doing so aggressively. Its revenue per lawyer hovers around what like a million, which is respectable. Contrast that again with baker Mackenzie which has less revenue and way more lawyers. And yet you see relatively way more DLA hate than baker Mackenzie hate. What am I missing?

At the risk of derailing the thread just wondering why you see hate on DLA from time to time on tls...unless, here, by “good firm” you mean “top 10 prestige wise” then I suppose I hear you. But using the word “good” suggests you think it sucks.

Does DLA pay lockstep? For some reason, I thought they just did 190 and weren't lockstep after. Doesn't the trolling go back to Desert Fox or was there something else?

trebekismyhero wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:

Ultramar vistas wrote:

QContinuum wrote:This really goes to show that Vault still has its advantages over the AmLaw rankings. No firm in the Vault top 30 - let alone the V10 - has announced pay cuts, salary freezes or layoffs for associates - yet 2 in the AmLaw top 10 have.

And this shouldn’t be surprising, right? I mean, the amlaw 100 is literally just the top firms by revenue.

Vault is the indirect result of all the lawyers vaguely knowing how much money all the firms make and then applying a filter so that we aren’t pretending DLA Piper is a good firm.

I’ve always felt like the aggressive anti DLA trolling that you see from time to time is sort of baseless. Is it anywhere near number 3 if prestige is factored in? Probably not.

But it’s got its fortune 100 clients and hys grads and former fedclerks just like the rest of them, it pays lockstep market, no cuts to US associates even where like baker McKenzie is doing so aggressively. Its revenue per lawyer hovers around what like a million, which is respectable. Contrast that again with baker Mackenzie which has less revenue and way more lawyers. And yet you see relatively way more DLA hate than baker Mackenzie hate. What am I missing?

At the risk of derailing the thread just wondering why you see hate on DLA from time to time on tls...unless, here, by “good firm” you mean “top 10 prestige wise” then I suppose I hear you. But using the word “good” suggests you think it sucks.

Does DLA pay lockstep? For some reason, I thought they just did 190 and weren't lockstep after. Doesn't the trolling go back to Desert Fox or was there something else?

They do, and in all markets I believe, as I remember seeing it on ATL when they were all boosting to milbank level.

Now DLA was a bad offender when it all hit the fan in 09 or whatever and it got some deservedly bad press I remember (and somebody posted an atl compilation on another thread recently that I reread). That being said, so was Latham.

It kind of seems like all of tls decided to get together some years ago and find some random v20-v50 firm to shit on and DLA’s name came out of the hat and it’s been like a running joke since then.

I mean you have some firms that deserve it like JD (black box and somehow gets away with it, serious allegations of mistreatment of women/parents), cadwalader (everybody knows it sucks to work there), and maybe one or two others I’m forgetting...but yeah I just don’t get it with DLA, especially when you compare it to baker McKenzie which is similar in size but notably worse in pretty much every category and there’s no hate.

QContinuum wrote:This really goes to show that Vault still has its advantages over the AmLaw rankings. No firm in the Vault top 30 - let alone the V10 - has announced pay cuts, salary freezes or layoffs for associates - yet 2 in the AmLaw top 10 have.

I know this is probably a silly question, but are firms that have announced pay cuts thus far decidedly in a worse financial position than those that haven't? I ask because I can't tell if some of these firms are just being proactive in cushioning the financial blow that the pandemic will inflict, or if it's more a move of necessity for firms, stemming from financials that were shaky even before the pandemic.

Anonymous User wrote:

QContinuum wrote:This really goes to show that Vault still has its advantages over the AmLaw rankings. No firm in the Vault top 30 - let alone the V10 - has announced pay cuts, salary freezes or layoffs for associates - yet 2 in the AmLaw top 10 have.

I know this is probably a silly question, but are firms that have announced pay cuts thus far decidedly in a worse financial position than those that haven't? I ask because I can't tell if some of these firms are just being proactive in cushioning the financial blow that the pandemic will inflict, or if it's more a move of necessity for firms, stemming from financials that were shaky even before the pandemic.

It's probably a little of both. At least some firms that have already come forward were probably on shaky ground before the pandemic. But I think if a firm knows that they can't operate without pay cuts/deferrals, it's prudent to announce cuts/deferrals early.

A word of caution about profit margin. Some firms have very high profit margins because they focus on high margin practices, because they have armies of non-equity partners billed out at partner rates but not paid as partners (in K&E's case), and/or because of their billing model (in Wachtell's case).

Other firms have high margins because they are extraordinarily stingy (by biglaw standards) and underpay staff (or don't fill vacancies at all), offer crappy benefits, nickel and dime associates on reimbursements (for meals and other expenses), etc. This is great if you're a partner, but not so much if you're anyone else at the firm. Being stingy in normal times also means that, if things go sour, there aren't really any costs that you can cut further.

For these firms, being stingy also inflates PPP. Some of the stingy firms in the top 20 by PPP would drop out of the top 20 if they had profit margins that are closer to the median for the top 20 (50ish%). So, high profit margin and high PPP, by themselves, don't tell you that much about a firm's business.

Anon because I obviously work at a stingy high profit margin firm.

Anyone see that W&C dropped out of the 100? Seems strange and would reflect an ~10% drop in yearly revenue for a V20.

jm2819 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

QContinuum wrote:This really goes to show that Vault still has its advantages over the AmLaw rankings. No firm in the Vault top 30 - let alone the V10 - has announced pay cuts, salary freezes or layoffs for associates - yet 2 in the AmLaw top 10 have.

I know this is probably a silly question, but are firms that have announced pay cuts thus far decidedly in a worse financial position than those that haven't? I ask because I can't tell if some of these firms are just being proactive in cushioning the financial blow that the pandemic will inflict, or if it's more a move of necessity for firms, stemming from financials that were shaky even before the pandemic.

It's probably a little of both. At least some firms that have already come forward were probably on shaky ground before the pandemic. But I think if a firm knows that they can't operate without pay cuts/deferrals, it's prudent to announce cuts/deferrals early.

I think it’s hard to say. L&E firms which are busy right now have experienced pay cuts. I feel like it’s more about being proactive and about the industry revenue is coming from and determining how impacted you may be.

Anonymous User wrote:A word of caution about profit margin. Some firms have very high profit margins because they focus on high margin practices, because they have armies of non-equity partners billed out at partner rates but not paid as partners (in K&E's case), and/or because of their billing model (in Wachtell's case).

Other firms have high margins because they are extraordinarily stingy (by biglaw standards) and underpay staff (or don't fill vacancies at all), offer crappy benefits, nickel and dime associates on reimbursements (for meals and other expenses), etc. This is great if you're a partner, but not so much if you're anyone else at the firm. Being stingy in normal times also means that, if things go sour, there aren't really any costs that you can cut further.

For these firms, being stingy also inflates PPP. Some of the stingy firms in the top 20 by PPP would drop out of the top 20 if they had profit margins that are closer to the median for the top 20 (50ish%). So, high profit margin and high PPP, by themselves, don't tell you that much about a firm's business.

Anon because I obviously work at a stingy high profit margin firm.

I don't think this is right. Top firms have generally the same costs (same salaries, office space needs etc), but billing rates differ significantly. Some firms also have a lot more work and associates have higher average hours. Billing rate X average hours is by far the biggest driver. Being cheap isn't not materially moving the needle for anyone.

Anyone have the PPP numbers? I bless whoever shares them

Thoughts on PPP vs RPL as metric of strength?

objctnyrhnr wrote:

Ultramar vistas wrote:

QContinuum wrote:This really goes to show that Vault still has its advantages over the AmLaw rankings. No firm in the Vault top 30 - let alone the V10 - has announced pay cuts, salary freezes or layoffs for associates - yet 2 in the AmLaw top 10 have.

And this shouldn’t be surprising, right? I mean, the amlaw 100 is literally just the top firms by revenue.

Vault is the indirect result of all the lawyers vaguely knowing how much money all the firms make and then applying a filter so that we aren’t pretending DLA Piper is a good firm.

I’ve always felt like the aggressive anti DLA trolling that you see from time to time is sort of baseless. Is it anywhere near number 3 if prestige is factored in? Probably not.

But it’s got its fortune 100 clients and hys grads and former fedclerks just like the rest of them, it pays lockstep market, no cuts to US associates even where like baker McKenzie is doing so aggressively. Its revenue per lawyer hovers around what like a million, which is respectable. Contrast that again with baker Mackenzie which has less revenue and way more lawyers. And yet you see relatively way more DLA hate than baker Mackenzie hate. What am I missing?

At the risk of derailing the thread just wondering why you see hate on DLA from time to time on tls...unless, here, by “good firm” you mean “top 10 prestige wise” then I suppose I hear you. But using the word “good” suggests you think it sucks.

Honestly wasn’t meaning to “troll” DLA Piper - it’s just the first objectively non-prestigious firm I saw on the AmLaw 100 list that I don’t think most associates are ranking highly on vault. It’s a fine place to work I’m sure, but it was just the first good example that I saw (as are a bunch of other firms) of raw revenue needing at least one other factor to come up with a decent list.

Agree with the poster above, the AmLaw Super Rich is probably the best proxy for what vault is trying to capture, while keeping emotions and the opinions of first year associates out of it.

Ultramar vistas wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:

Ultramar vistas wrote:

QContinuum wrote:This really goes to show that Vault still has its advantages over the AmLaw rankings. No firm in the Vault top 30 - let alone the V10 - has announced pay cuts, salary freezes or layoffs for associates - yet 2 in the AmLaw top 10 have.

And this shouldn’t be surprising, right? I mean, the amlaw 100 is literally just the top firms by revenue.

Vault is the indirect result of all the lawyers vaguely knowing how much money all the firms make and then applying a filter so that we aren’t pretending DLA Piper is a good firm.

I’ve always felt like the aggressive anti DLA trolling that you see from time to time is sort of baseless. Is it anywhere near number 3 if prestige is factored in? Probably not.

But it’s got its fortune 100 clients and hys grads and former fedclerks just like the rest of them, it pays lockstep market, no cuts to US associates even where like baker McKenzie is doing so aggressively. Its revenue per lawyer hovers around what like a million, which is respectable. Contrast that again with baker Mackenzie which has less revenue and way more lawyers. And yet you see relatively way more DLA hate than baker Mackenzie hate. What am I missing?

At the risk of derailing the thread just wondering why you see hate on DLA from time to time on tls...unless, here, by “good firm” you mean “top 10 prestige wise” then I suppose I hear you. But using the word “good” suggests you think it sucks.

Honestly wasn’t meaning to “troll” DLA Piper - it’s just the first objectively non-prestigious firm I saw on the AmLaw 100 list that I don’t think most associates are ranking highly on vault. It’s a fine place to work I’m sure, but it was just the first good example that I saw (as are a bunch of other firms) of raw revenue needing at least one other factor to come up with a decent list.

Agree with the poster above, the AmLaw Super Rich is probably the best proxy for what vault is trying to capture, while keeping emotions and the opinions of first year associates out of it.

Ah so by good, you meant “elite” basically. Makes sense I suppose. Still interested more generally on why the tls DLA piper hate (although it’s dissipated in recent years), as I feel like there’s a good story or something behind it because it’s not super warranted from what I can see on the numbers...interested in what the desert fox reference was from a different poster in that subject.

Those Goldman bucks are really helping S&C partners out hmm. I'd be very interested to see how much this changes next year, seems like there could be drastic changes.

objctnyrhnr wrote:

Ultramar vistas wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:

Ultramar vistas wrote:

QContinuum wrote:This really goes to show that Vault still has its advantages over the AmLaw rankings. No firm in the Vault top 30 - let alone the V10 - has announced pay cuts, salary freezes or layoffs for associates - yet 2 in the AmLaw top 10 have.

And this shouldn’t be surprising, right? I mean, the amlaw 100 is literally just the top firms by revenue.

Vault is the indirect result of all the lawyers vaguely knowing how much money all the firms make and then applying a filter so that we aren’t pretending DLA Piper is a good firm.

I’ve always felt like the aggressive anti DLA trolling that you see from time to time is sort of baseless. Is it anywhere near number 3 if prestige is factored in? Probably not.

But it’s got its fortune 100 clients and hys grads and former fedclerks just like the rest of them, it pays lockstep market, no cuts to US associates even where like baker McKenzie is doing so aggressively. Its revenue per lawyer hovers around what like a million, which is respectable. Contrast that again with baker Mackenzie which has less revenue and way more lawyers. And yet you see relatively way more DLA hate than baker Mackenzie hate. What am I missing?

At the risk of derailing the thread just wondering why you see hate on DLA from time to time on tls...unless, here, by “good firm” you mean “top 10 prestige wise” then I suppose I hear you. But using the word “good” suggests you think it sucks.

Honestly wasn’t meaning to “troll” DLA Piper - it’s just the first objectively non-prestigious firm I saw on the AmLaw 100 list that I don’t think most associates are ranking highly on vault. It’s a fine place to work I’m sure, but it was just the first good example that I saw (as are a bunch of other firms) of raw revenue needing at least one other factor to come up with a decent list.

Agree with the poster above, the AmLaw Super Rich is probably the best proxy for what vault is trying to capture, while keeping emotions and the opinions of first year associates out of it.

Ah so by good, you meant “elite” basically. Makes sense I suppose. Still interested more generally on why the tls DLA piper hate (although it’s dissipated in recent years), as I feel like there’s a good story or something behind it because it’s not super warranted from what I can see on the numbers...interested in what the desert fox reference was from a different poster in that subject.

I don't have any specific stories related to DF, but as you know he was one of the more prolific and entertaining posters. I believe he was at DLA in DC and others would often troll and make V42 jokes about DLA.

I enjoy the "Super Rich" list solely because it puts Cravath in its place. I've been a preacher for a long time that Cravath just isn't special anymore. Their day-long interviews and straight out of law school hiring are gimmicks more than anything else. At my T13, half of the firms above it (and even a few below it) on the "Super Rich" list were far more selective at OCI. There are now 13 firms with a higher PPP with the 4 or so ranked after it at essentially the same PPP, and quite a few firms that have RPL above, at, or only slighly below Cravath's level.

Sackboy wrote:I enjoy the "Super Rich" list solely because it puts Cravath in its place. I've been a preacher for a long time that Cravath just isn't special anymore. Their day-long interviews and straight out of law school hiring are gimmicks more than anything else. At my T13, half of the firms above it (and even a few below it) on the "Super Rich" list were far more selective at OCI. There are now 13 firms with a higher PPP with the 4 or so ranked after it at essentially the same PPP, and quite a few firms that have RPL above, at, or only slighly below Cravath's level.

What’s that list? Anybody care to copy and paste?

objctnyrhnr wrote:

Sackboy wrote:I enjoy the "Super Rich" list solely because it puts Cravath in its place. I've been a preacher for a long time that Cravath just isn't special anymore. Their day-long interviews and straight out of law school hiring are gimmicks more than anything else. At my T13, half of the firms above it (and even a few below it) on the "Super Rich" list were far more selective at OCI. There are now 13 firms with a higher PPP with the 4 or so ranked after it at essentially the same PPP, and quite a few firms that have RPL above, at, or only slighly below Cravath's level.

What’s that list? Anybody care to copy and paste?

https://infogram.com/am-law-100-super-r ... on5myp72pw

jackshunger wrote:Those Goldman bucks are really helping S&C partners out hmm. I'd be very interested to see how much this changes next year, seems like there could be drastic changes.

Care to elaborate?

Sackboy wrote:I enjoy the "Super Rich" list solely because it puts Cravath in its place. I've been a preacher for a long time that Cravath just isn't special anymore. Their day-long interviews and straight out of law school hiring are gimmicks more than anything else. At my T13, half of the firms above it (and even a few below it) on the "Super Rich" list were far more selective at OCI. There are now 13 firms with a higher PPP with the 4 or so ranked after it at essentially the same PPP, and quite a few firms that have RPL above, at, or only slighly below Cravath's level.

The day-long interviews are stupid, as is the firm's (seemingly) sincere belief that they're more elite than everyone except WLRK. Like guys, it's not 1991.

That said, I like the single-office model, focus on developing from within and investing in juniors. The Kirkland approach is terrible for everyone except rainmaker partners. Like if Ayn Rand ran a law firm.