Kirkland’s rating system Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:48 pm

What’s normal for a 4th or 5th year? I’m a lateral and am trying to get a sense of what’s to be expected for someone generally on track. Is a 2 normal as a 4th and 5th year or should you be making 1s by then to be on track for NSP? Does most of the class get the same rating?

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:56 pm

If you’re on track, you would have the following reviews in successive associate years: 3 3 3 3 2 1 or 3 3 3 2 1 1

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:30 pm

If you just lateraled in this year, I think the highest you can get is a 2 this year. Don’t stress, continue to do good work, and you’ll make partner.

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 23, 2020 4:49 am

The overwhelming majority of associates, including those who are considered "on track" to make NSP, receive 3s up until a year or two before their NSP promotion year. In the year or two before, the ratings will typically start to float up to a 2/1--could be 3-3-3-3-3-2, could be 3-3-3-3-2-1, could be 3-3-3-3-2-2 something like that. In the first few years it's not atypical to have an entire associate class without a single 2 or 1 rating, they really are rare and are reserved for special circumstances or performers. You do see some more breakout in the ratings spread beyond the 3rd year but not by much--most of the band is still compressed into the 3 rating even for strong associates.

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:05 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:56 pm
If you’re on track, you would have the following reviews in successive associate years: 3 3 3 3 2 1 or 3 3 3 2 1 1
This seems exaggerated. Plenty of associates get to NSP without having 2s in their 5th or especially their 4th years. I think the only actual requirement internally is that the 6th year rating has to be better than a 3.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


midwestrocks

New
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by midwestrocks » Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:19 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:05 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:56 pm
If you’re on track, you would have the following reviews in successive associate years: 3 3 3 3 2 1 or 3 3 3 2 1 1
This seems exaggerated. Plenty of associates get to NSP without having 2s in their 5th or especially their 4th years. I think the only actual requirement internally is that the 6th year rating has to be better than a 3.
Is this true? I thought you literally had to get a 1 to be NSP--and that pretty much everyone who makes it 6th year gets a one. Way it was explained to me was that 3 meant par for the course, 2 means on your way to NSP, and 1 is will make NSP unless you completely check out. But it's never been very clear.

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:44 pm

midwestrocks wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:19 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:05 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:56 pm
If you’re on track, you would have the following reviews in successive associate years: 3 3 3 3 2 1 or 3 3 3 2 1 1
This seems exaggerated. Plenty of associates get to NSP without having 2s in their 5th or especially their 4th years. I think the only actual requirement internally is that the 6th year rating has to be better than a 3.
Is this true? I thought you literally had to get a 1 to be NSP--and that pretty much everyone who makes it 6th year gets a one. Way it was explained to me was that 3 meant par for the course, 2 means on your way to NSP, and 1 is will make NSP unless you completely check out. But it's never been very clear.
2s can make NSP - the firm will allow you to make NSP even if there is no shot at you making shares if you're in a busy group. The norm when I was there was 4 years as NSP before you were considered for shares. Associates who became NSPs with 2s were somewhat understood to be decent enough to continue managing deals/teams and billing high amounts, but not truly expected to be in the running for share partnership.

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:48 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:44 pm
midwestrocks wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:19 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:05 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:56 pm
If you’re on track, you would have the following reviews in successive associate years: 3 3 3 3 2 1 or 3 3 3 2 1 1
This seems exaggerated. Plenty of associates get to NSP without having 2s in their 5th or especially their 4th years. I think the only actual requirement internally is that the 6th year rating has to be better than a 3.
Is this true? I thought you literally had to get a 1 to be NSP--and that pretty much everyone who makes it 6th year gets a one. Way it was explained to me was that 3 meant par for the course, 2 means on your way to NSP, and 1 is will make NSP unless you completely check out. But it's never been very clear.
2s can make NSP - the firm will allow you to make NSP even if there is no shot at you making shares if you're in a busy group. The norm when I was there was 4 years as NSP before you were considered for shares. Associates who became NSPs with 2s were somewhat understood to be decent enough to continue managing deals/teams and billing high amounts, but not truly expected to be in the running for share partnership.
This has changed at this point. The NSP ranks have become much more of a semi-permanent landing place over the last few years. There's a "permanent NSP" positon now at the firm that something like 10, 20, 25% (can't remember, sorry) of NSPs are slotted in. But even NSPs who are considered "in the running" may be forced to linger for years before getting shares. The whole structure seems to be becoming less straightforward as they cram more and more senior associates into the NSP position. There was an article on this in ?Bloomberg Law? in January--"How Partners in Name Only Live in Limbo." Kirkland took a lot of heat in that article, deservedly so. The bottom line is you can't read so much into the rating system anymore; you'd be foolish to assume you're on track for shares because you got a 1 your 6th year; you'd be foolish to assume you're NOT on track for shares because you got a 2. It's been made intentionally ambiguous and extended; there's a lot of dissatisfaction within the NSP ranks at the Firm because the path to shares has become so opaque these days.

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:55 pm

I know for a fact in my group that you're not getting shares unless (1) you lateraled over as a co-chair of a V50s practice, or (2) you've done 12yrs+ of time in the practice. The model is becoming extremely protracted for many service groups, and some people do indeed become lifetime NSP, which seems miserable.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:48 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:44 pm
midwestrocks wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:19 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:05 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:56 pm
If you’re on track, you would have the following reviews in successive associate years: 3 3 3 3 2 1 or 3 3 3 2 1 1
This seems exaggerated. Plenty of associates get to NSP without having 2s in their 5th or especially their 4th years. I think the only actual requirement internally is that the 6th year rating has to be better than a 3.
Is this true? I thought you literally had to get a 1 to be NSP--and that pretty much everyone who makes it 6th year gets a one. Way it was explained to me was that 3 meant par for the course, 2 means on your way to NSP, and 1 is will make NSP unless you completely check out. But it's never been very clear.
2s can make NSP - the firm will allow you to make NSP even if there is no shot at you making shares if you're in a busy group. The norm when I was there was 4 years as NSP before you were considered for shares. Associates who became NSPs with 2s were somewhat understood to be decent enough to continue managing deals/teams and billing high amounts, but not truly expected to be in the running for share partnership.
This has changed at this point. The NSP ranks have become much more of a semi-permanent landing place over the last few years. There's a "permanent NSP" positon now at the firm that something like 10, 20, 25% (can't remember, sorry) of NSPs are slotted in. But even NSPs who are considered "in the running" may be forced to linger for years before getting shares. The whole structure seems to be becoming less straightforward as they cram more and more senior associates into the NSP position. There was an article on this in ?Bloomberg Law? in January--"How Partners in Name Only Live in Limbo." Kirkland took a lot of heat in that article, deservedly so. The bottom line is you can't read so much into the rating system anymore; you'd be foolish to assume you're on track for shares because you got a 1 your 6th year; you'd be foolish to assume you're NOT on track for shares because you got a 2. It's been made intentionally ambiguous and extended; there's a lot of dissatisfaction within the NSP ranks at the Firm because the path to shares has become so opaque these days.
The path to shares has always been opaque. These numbers mean nothing on their own - ultimately whether an NSP makes it depends on (1) talent/ability, as perceived by management, and (2) political clout of his/her share partner backers. This formula has never changed at K&E, and it is the same at other top firms as well. I get the appeal for law students and junior lawyers not far removed from getting evaluated based on grades/scores to try to make sense of the system for promotion based on an objective framework, but things are different now.

That being said, if you're making NSP on a 2, you're not at the top of your class. And if you don't manage to get to the top of your class during your NSP years, you won't make it. No matter how much they may like you personally, share partners aren't going to back someone who they don't see as being a top caliber NSP.

Above poster is incorrect - there's no widespread grumbling in the NSP ranks. Everybody in that deep knows how the game works, and they are either working on a contingency plan or making that final push to shares -- there are never any surprises when an NSP makes it, it's always obvious.

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Sep 29, 2020 8:57 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:46 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:48 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:44 pm
midwestrocks wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:19 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:05 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:56 pm
If you’re on track, you would have the following reviews in successive associate years: 3 3 3 3 2 1 or 3 3 3 2 1 1
This seems exaggerated. Plenty of associates get to NSP without having 2s in their 5th or especially their 4th years. I think the only actual requirement internally is that the 6th year rating has to be better than a 3.
Is this true? I thought you literally had to get a 1 to be NSP--and that pretty much everyone who makes it 6th year gets a one. Way it was explained to me was that 3 meant par for the course, 2 means on your way to NSP, and 1 is will make NSP unless you completely check out. But it's never been very clear.
2s can make NSP - the firm will allow you to make NSP even if there is no shot at you making shares if you're in a busy group. The norm when I was there was 4 years as NSP before you were considered for shares. Associates who became NSPs with 2s were somewhat understood to be decent enough to continue managing deals/teams and billing high amounts, but not truly expected to be in the running for share partnership.
This has changed at this point. The NSP ranks have become much more of a semi-permanent landing place over the last few years. There's a "permanent NSP" positon now at the firm that something like 10, 20, 25% (can't remember, sorry) of NSPs are slotted in. But even NSPs who are considered "in the running" may be forced to linger for years before getting shares. The whole structure seems to be becoming less straightforward as they cram more and more senior associates into the NSP position. There was an article on this in ?Bloomberg Law? in January--"How Partners in Name Only Live in Limbo." Kirkland took a lot of heat in that article, deservedly so. The bottom line is you can't read so much into the rating system anymore; you'd be foolish to assume you're on track for shares because you got a 1 your 6th year; you'd be foolish to assume you're NOT on track for shares because you got a 2. It's been made intentionally ambiguous and extended; there's a lot of dissatisfaction within the NSP ranks at the Firm because the path to shares has become so opaque these days.
The path to shares has always been opaque. These numbers mean nothing on their own - ultimately whether an NSP makes it depends on (1) talent/ability, as perceived by management, and (2) political clout of his/her share partner backers. This formula has never changed at K&E, and it is the same at other top firms as well. I get the appeal for law students and junior lawyers not far removed from getting evaluated based on grades/scores to try to make sense of the system for promotion based on an objective framework, but things are different now.

That being said, if you're making NSP on a 2, you're not at the top of your class. And if you don't manage to get to the top of your class during your NSP years, you won't make it. No matter how much they may like you personally, share partners aren't going to back someone who they don't see as being a top caliber NSP.

Above poster is incorrect - there's no widespread grumbling in the NSP ranks. Everybody in that deep knows how the game works, and they are either working on a contingency plan or making that final push to shares -- there are never any surprises when an NSP makes it, it's always obvious.
As the "above poster," your perspective seems about five years behind the current curve; are you still at K&E? Because I'm a "deep" NSP at K&E who's currently still in the running for shares in my group--I presume, maybe dangerously--and I can tell you that there is widespread dissatisfaction amongst NSPs here about the path to promotion and an appreciable downturn in morale vs. what we observed among NSPs even just five years prior, let alone ten.

Yes, the path to shares has always been somewhat opaque but there are degrees of difference and there's a widespread sense that the bridge is now really being pulled up for current class NSPs as K&E has increasingly come to rely on poaching / laterals to fill its SP ranks; we buy entire practice groups from rival firms at this point and the idea of an organically promoted attorney rising to SP is almost mythical now in many groups. Case in point, there wasn't a "permanent NSP" rank five years ago to permanently park a significant portion of NSPs into the slot forever; the firm uses ambiguity and opaqueness more than ever now to juice its profits by keeping more and more people stuck in the NSP rank, being billed out at $1k+ per hour; NSPs are profit centers for the firm.

Also, as another poster above intimated and you may already know, the old traditional model was you were up for share consideration in your 10th year and you got typically 2 shots. There are many groups that are now elongating that track by several additional years before you might even be considered for shares. On top of this, there's less and less incentive to promote to SP now because the PPP of the firm has gotten so out of control that there's a major gap between NSP comp and SP comp -- NSPs cap out at around 500k, (maybe a little more lately with all the comp wars); SPs bare minimum level of comp. is now approaching $2m as of last year based on the required minimum number of shares and their value. So it's a huge investment to give the golden ring now and there's a lot of hesitation in groups to do it and spread the wealth; I don't think the spread between NSP and entry SP has ever been as wide as it is now.

Finally, I've known, personally, NSPs who everyone thought were going to "make it" only to see them ship off after getting passed over a couple times. I've also seen, probably even more depressingly, some NSPs who were supposed to make it who ended up getting locked into a permanent NSP / of counsel role; it's hard watching an attorney once thought of as a superstar reduced to that. Conversely, there are more than a handful of SPs whose decision to be promoted to shares left lots of us scratching our heads. It's not nearly as straightforward as your post is trying to suggest.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Wed Sep 30, 2020 2:03 am, edited 3 times in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 8:57 pm

K&E has increasingly come to rely on poaching / laterals to fill its SP ranks; we buy entire practice groups from rival firms at this point and the idea of an organically promoted attorney rising to SP is almost mythical now in many groups.

Also, as another poster above intimated and you may already know, the old traditional model was you were up for share consideration in your 10th year and you got typically 2 shots. There are many groups that are now elongating that track by several additional years before you might even be considered for shares. On top of this, there's less and less incentive to promote to SP now because the PPP of the firm has gotten so out of control that there's a major gap between NSP comp and SP comp -- NSPs cap out at around 500k; SPs bare minimum level of comp. is now approaching $2m as of last year based on the required minimum number of shares and their value. So it's a huge investment to give the golden ring now and there's a lot of hesitation in groups to do it and spread the wealth; I don't think the spread between NSP and entry SP has ever been as wide as it is now.
I'm the poster above who intimated that the elongated model is over 10 years now for real equity consideration. I can for a fact say that the past my group has made about five equity partners over the last fifteen years, and every one of them has been a lateral that had 10+ years of experience before arriving at K&E. Partnership at K&E is great in the sense that the NSP title, which is pretty easily acquirable, can open up some cool in-house opportunities and make you competitive for jumping over to another firm that actually values its NSPs.

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:45 pm

What kind of differentiation in bonus multiplier happens if, for example, you have 2 in your 4th year or a 1 in your 5th year? One 5th year was boasting well over half a million in compensation and it seems insane to me, but if true, starts to change the calculus on whether an extra 50 hours/month is worth $150k.

People here seem to have a lot of information about the "grid" but, as a lateral, I'm completely in the dark so even anecdotal information would be helpful.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Oct 04, 2020 1:13 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 8:57 pm
As the "above poster," your perspective seems about five years behind the current curve; are you still at K&E? Because I'm a "deep" NSP at K&E who's currently still in the running for shares in my group--I presume, maybe dangerously--and I can tell you that there is widespread dissatisfaction amongst NSPs here about the path to promotion and an appreciable downturn in morale vs. what we observed among NSPs even just five years prior, let alone ten.

Yes, the path to shares has always been somewhat opaque but there are degrees of difference and there's a widespread sense that the bridge is now really being pulled up for current class NSPs as K&E has increasingly come to rely on poaching / laterals to fill its SP ranks; we buy entire practice groups from rival firms at this point and the idea of an organically promoted attorney rising to SP is almost mythical now in many groups. Case in point, there wasn't a "permanent NSP" rank five years ago to permanently park a significant portion of NSPs into the slot forever; the firm uses ambiguity and opaqueness more than ever now to juice its profits by keeping more and more people stuck in the NSP rank, being billed out at $1k+ per hour; NSPs are profit centers for the firm.

Also, as another poster above intimated and you may already know, the old traditional model was you were up for share consideration in your 10th year and you got typically 2 shots. There are many groups that are now elongating that track by several additional years before you might even be considered for shares. On top of this, there's less and less incentive to promote to SP now because the PPP of the firm has gotten so out of control that there's a major gap between NSP comp and SP comp -- NSPs cap out at around 500k, (maybe a little more lately with all the comp wars); SPs bare minimum level of comp. is now approaching $2m as of last year based on the required minimum number of shares and their value. So it's a huge investment to give the golden ring now and there's a lot of hesitation in groups to do it and spread the wealth; I don't think the spread between NSP and entry SP has ever been as wide as it is now.

Finally, I've known, personally, NSPs who everyone thought were going to "make it" only to see them ship off after getting passed over a couple times. I've also seen, probably even more depressingly, some NSPs who were supposed to make it who ended up getting locked into a permanent NSP / of counsel role; it's hard watching an attorney once thought of as a superstar reduced to that. Conversely, there are more than a handful of SPs whose decision to be promoted to shares left lots of us scratching our heads. It's not nearly as straightforward as your post is trying to suggest.
Any insight into litigation? It seems like almost no one is making shares unless they have unicorn credentials (i.e. SCOTUS clerkships) along with the requisite client connections.

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:55 am

One of the newest litigation SPs in DC didn't have a SCOTUS clerkship. That definitely appears not to be the norm however. Sure seems like in lit, the long-term play is to lateral down with the benefit of KE on the resume - assuming you want to stay in private practice.

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:55 am
One of the newest litigation SPs in DC didn't have a SCOTUS clerkship. That definitely appears not to be the norm however. Sure seems like in lit, the long-term play is to lateral down with the benefit of KE on the resume - assuming you want to stay in private practice.
Is it really that common for litigation SPs to have SCOTUS clerkships? And is their success because of their credentials or because of their business case / billable hours?

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:32 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:55 am
One of the newest litigation SPs in DC didn't have a SCOTUS clerkship. That definitely appears not to be the norm however. Sure seems like in lit, the long-term play is to lateral down with the benefit of KE on the resume - assuming you want to stay in private practice.
Is it really that common for litigation SPs to have SCOTUS clerkships? And is their success because of their credentials or because of their business case / billable hours?
I overstated this - there are more SPs without them than with, but especially in the younger tier of litigation SPs (and especially especially the ones who do appeals, even if they aren't in Paul Clement's "appellate" group), SCOTUS clerkships are probably the single best determinative factor of who will make SP from a given class and who will not. Up to you which way you think the causation runs there.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:31 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:32 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:55 am
One of the newest litigation SPs in DC didn't have a SCOTUS clerkship. That definitely appears not to be the norm however. Sure seems like in lit, the long-term play is to lateral down with the benefit of KE on the resume - assuming you want to stay in private practice.
Is it really that common for litigation SPs to have SCOTUS clerkships? And is their success because of their credentials or because of their business case / billable hours?
I overstated this - there are more SPs without them than with, but especially in the younger tier of litigation SPs (and especially especially the ones who do appeals, even if they aren't in Paul Clement's "appellate" group), SCOTUS clerkships are probably the single best determinative factor of who will make SP from a given class and who will not. Up to you which way you think the causation runs there.
Any idea if this has something to do with how they recruit SCOTUS clerks? I believe I read that it came out in the Jones Day wrongful termination suit that JD basically guarantees partnership to SCOTUS clerks.

Sackboy

Silver
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:14 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Sackboy » Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:30 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:06 pm

Any idea if this has something to do with how they recruit SCOTUS clerks? I believe I read that it came out in the Jones Day wrongful termination suit that JD basically guarantees partnership to SCOTUS clerks.
Unlikely. JD can basically guarantee partnership to SCOTUS clerks because JD mints tons of equity partners and just pays them using a complete black box. Worst case scenario, you make a SCOTUS clerk an equity partner, they're so-so, and you pay them like $500,000/yr. JD's prolific equity tier and black box compensation is why JD's profit per equity partner is like $1.1M. While there are some rain makers at JD, there are also a lot of equity partners that make the compensation of counsel or non-equity partners elsewhere. At a place like Kirkland, where profit per equity partner is north of $5M, you can't guarantee anyone equity that early in their career.

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:48 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:31 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:32 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:55 am
One of the newest litigation SPs in DC didn't have a SCOTUS clerkship. That definitely appears not to be the norm however. Sure seems like in lit, the long-term play is to lateral down with the benefit of KE on the resume - assuming you want to stay in private practice.
Is it really that common for litigation SPs to have SCOTUS clerkships? And is their success because of their credentials or because of their business case / billable hours?
I overstated this - there are more SPs without them than with, but especially in the younger tier of litigation SPs (and especially especially the ones who do appeals, even if they aren't in Paul Clement's "appellate" group), SCOTUS clerkships are probably the single best determinative factor of who will make SP from a given class and who will not. Up to you which way you think the causation runs there.
Very interesting. Do you know if the inverse also holds true? Are there litigation associates with SCOTUS clerkships and similar credentials who fail to make shares?

Anonymous User
Posts: 431119
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:02 pm

How much longer can you stay if you don’t make NSP after 6 years?

Ultramar vistas

Bronze
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:55 am

Re: Kirkland’s rating system

Post by Ultramar vistas » Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:59 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:02 pm
How much longer can you stay if you don’t make NSP after 6 years?
Probably group / office / prior history dependent but seems like folks who have been good but had a down year or whatever get another chance to make NSP.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”