Lateral to Kirkland? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Old mid-level/young senior associate here at a DC office of a V10; practice is regulatory/lit. I'm considering a lateral move to a peer firm's DC office, and it looks like Kirkland may be an option. Posts here seem to paint Kirkland's transactional practice as a sweatshop; is that generally the same across the board and across offices? Also - the higher likelihood of becoming a partner is enticing (even if it's non-equity). Has anyone here moved to Kirkland specifically for the (non-equity) partnership prospects?

[moxcoal]

I have a friend who did so with the title and a slight comp increase in mind. Only regret so far is that it’s sweatshop corp (even more so than the prior firm which has a comparable rep…) but perhaps regulatory and lit is different. I think it’s a fine consideration as long as you’re getting some, even marginal, increase in comp

[lifeisshort]

K&E Lit & Regulatory is also sweatshop...

[Anonymous User]

Old mid-level/young senior associate here at a DC office of a V10; practice is regulatory/lit. I'm considering a lateral move to a peer firm's DC office, and it looks like Kirkland may be an option. Posts here seem to paint Kirkland's transactional practice as a sweatshop; is that generally the same across the board and across offices? Also - the higher likelihood of becoming a partner is enticing (even if it's non-equity). Has anyone here moved to Kirkland specifically for the (non-equity) partnership prospects?

lol at thinking there’s literally any value to being a non-share partner (non-equity) at Kirkland. There was a good thread on this about a month ago. The upshot is in many ways it’s the worst of all possible worlds with nearly all the expectations of an equity partner (and in many ways more) but with total career path ambiguity and for roughly 1/10th the equivalent equity comp.

[Anonymous User]

Old mid-level/young senior associate here at a DC office of a V10; practice is regulatory/lit. I'm considering a lateral move to a peer firm's DC office, and it looks like Kirkland may be an option. Posts here seem to paint Kirkland's transactional practice as a sweatshop; is that generally the same across the board and across offices? Also - the higher likelihood of becoming a partner is enticing (even if it's non-equity). Has anyone here moved to Kirkland specifically for the (non-equity) partnership prospects?

lol at thinking there’s literally any value to being a non-share partner (non-equity) at Kirkland. There was a good thread on this about a month ago. The upshot is in many ways it’s the worst of all possible worlds with nearly all the expectations of an equity partner (and in many ways more) but with total career path ambiguity and for roughly 1/10th the equivalent equity comp.

I mean, they make more than an equivalent senior associate at another firm, so I don't get this take.

[Anonymous User]

Old mid-level/young senior associate here at a DC office of a V10; practice is regulatory/lit. I'm considering a lateral move to a peer firm's DC office, and it looks like Kirkland may be an option. Posts here seem to paint Kirkland's transactional practice as a sweatshop; is that generally the same across the board and across offices? Also - the higher likelihood of becoming a partner is enticing (even if it's non-equity). Has anyone here moved to Kirkland specifically for the (non-equity) partnership prospects?

lol at thinking there’s literally any value to being a non-share partner (non-equity) at Kirkland. There was a good thread on this about a month ago. The upshot is in many ways it’s the worst of all possible worlds with nearly all the expectations of an equity partner (and in many ways more) but with total career path ambiguity and for roughly 1/10th the equivalent equity comp.

I mean, they make more than an equivalent senior associate at another firm, so I don't get this take.

they pay taxes like a partner and don't make partner $$ from my more limited understanding.

OP: TBQF if you like your current job then I would not lateral to K&E. The time that I worked there in one of the corp roles was objectively awful. The demands were unreasonable even for people expecting the demands to be unreasonable.

I personally, and again just a personal feeling, would not go back there, and nor would I recommend it to anybody else. But, it just depends: how much do you value your time? How much do you value having a working environment where being able to see your family is an expectation of the employee vs less acceptable? How do you feel about working in an environment where being on call 24-7 is the actual expectation?

Some kirkland people get really lucky and their experiences are really good -- this is notably true for the Funds group, especially Funds regulatory. But, personally, the day I sent my resignation was the happiest and freest I had felt since joining and that's never what you're looking to say about a place you gave your blood, sweat & tears to. Saying this does not make me feel good, yk? But, the rep kirkland has on here is not for nothing. There were a lot of tears.

[Anonymous User]

Old mid-level/young senior associate here at a DC office of a V10; practice is regulatory/lit. I'm considering a lateral move to a peer firm's DC office, and it looks like Kirkland may be an option. Posts here seem to paint Kirkland's transactional practice as a sweatshop; is that generally the same across the board and across offices? Also - the higher likelihood of becoming a partner is enticing (even if it's non-equity). Has anyone here moved to Kirkland specifically for the (non-equity) partnership prospects?

lol at thinking there’s literally any value to being a non-share partner (non-equity) at Kirkland. There was a good thread on this about a month ago. The upshot is in many ways it’s the worst of all possible worlds with nearly all the expectations of an equity partner (and in many ways more) but with total career path ambiguity and for roughly 1/10th the equivalent equity comp.

I mean, they make more than an equivalent senior associate at another firm, so I don't get this take.

they pay taxes like a partner and don't make partner $$ from my more limited understanding.

OP: TBQF if you like your current job then I would not lateral to K&E. The time that I worked there in one of the corp roles was objectively awful. The demands were unreasonable even for people expecting the demands to be unreasonable.

I personally, and again just a personal feeling, would not go back there, and nor would I recommend it to anybody else. But, it just depends: how much do you value your time? How much do you value having a working environment where being able to see your family is an expectation of the employee vs less acceptable? How do you feel about working in an environment where being on call 24-7 is the actual expectation?

Some kirkland people get really lucky and their experiences are really good -- this is notably true for the Funds group, especially Funds regulatory. But, personally, the day I sent my resignation was the happiest and freest I had felt since joining and that's never what you're looking to say about a place you gave your blood, sweat & tears to. Saying this does not make me feel good, yk? But, the rep kirkland has on here is not for nothing. There were a lot of tears.

What group were you in? Considering a position.

[Anonymous User]

Old mid-level/young senior associate here at a DC office of a V10; practice is regulatory/lit. I'm considering a lateral move to a peer firm's DC office, and it looks like Kirkland may be an option. Posts here seem to paint Kirkland's transactional practice as a sweatshop; is that generally the same across the board and across offices? Also - the higher likelihood of becoming a partner is enticing (even if it's non-equity). Has anyone here moved to Kirkland specifically for the (non-equity) partnership prospects?

lol at thinking there’s literally any value to being a non-share partner (non-equity) at Kirkland. There was a good thread on this about a month ago. The upshot is in many ways it’s the worst of all possible worlds with nearly all the expectations of an equity partner (and in many ways more) but with total career path ambiguity and for roughly 1/10th the equivalent equity comp.

I mean, they make more than an equivalent senior associate at another firm, so I don't get this take.

they pay taxes like a partner and don't make partner $$ from my more limited understanding.

OP: TBQF if you like your current job then I would not lateral to K&E. The time that I worked there in one of the corp roles was objectively awful. The demands were unreasonable even for people expecting the demands to be unreasonable.

I personally, and again just a personal feeling, would not go back there, and nor would I recommend it to anybody else. But, it just depends: how much do you value your time? How much do you value having a working environment where being able to see your family is an expectation of the employee vs less acceptable? How do you feel about working in an environment where being on call 24-7 is the actual expectation?

Some kirkland people get really lucky and their experiences are really good -- this is notably true for the Funds group, especially Funds regulatory. But, personally, the day I sent my resignation was the happiest and freest I had felt since joining and that's never what you're looking to say about a place you gave your blood, sweat & tears to. Saying this does not make me feel good, yk? But, the rep kirkland has on here is not for nothing. There were a lot of tears.

What group were you in? Considering a position.

Poster from above: I was in Capital Markets and did some work in Funds Formation as well. Have a friend in funds regulatory who says it's a really great group. The capital markets' working environment was incredibly toxic. At the time that I was there, an entire swath of attorneys quit together with literally no place to go after. It was led by an almost senior associate who was on maybe 15-20 deals at the time of the big SPAC boom. He left and when he wanted to leave everyone who worked for him also left with him rather than stay, which is not unheard of. But, I cannot emphasize enough, they did not have jobs lined up after their resignation. They simply quit en masse saying that they would no longer work in that environment. For risk-averse people like lawyers, that's a big jump (I heard all of this direct from the horse's mouth contemporaneously).

Overall, the work culture felt extremely toxic to me. I lateraled to another firm (in the group I wanted to be in, not corporate general) and have had an absolutely wonderful time since leaving. I know people say that all big law is the same, but that's really not true. Some firms are substantially less toxic in their expectations of their attorneys' time. But, there are many advantages to the prestige of Kirkland and its brand recognition (Kirkland Signature FTW). Again, this is all my personal opinion and it's entirely possible other people have had great experiences.

[Anonymous User]

Old mid-level/young senior associate here at a DC office of a V10; practice is regulatory/lit. I'm considering a lateral move to a peer firm's DC office, and it looks like Kirkland may be an option. Posts here seem to paint Kirkland's transactional practice as a sweatshop; is that generally the same across the board and across offices? Also - the higher likelihood of becoming a partner is enticing (even if it's non-equity). Has anyone here moved to Kirkland specifically for the (non-equity) partnership prospects?

lol at thinking there’s literally any value to being a non-share partner (non-equity) at Kirkland. There was a good thread on this about a month ago. The upshot is in many ways it’s the worst of all possible worlds with nearly all the expectations of an equity partner (and in many ways more) but with total career path ambiguity and for roughly 1/10th the equivalent equity comp.

I mean, they make more than an equivalent senior associate at another firm, so I don't get this take.

they pay taxes like a partner and don't make partner $$ from my more limited understanding.

OP: TBQF if you like your current job then I would not lateral to K&E. The time that I worked there in one of the corp roles was objectively awful. The demands were unreasonable even for people expecting the demands to be unreasonable.

I personally, and again just a personal feeling, would not go back there, and nor would I recommend it to anybody else. But, it just depends: how much do you value your time? How much do you value having a working environment where being able to see your family is an expectation of the employee vs less acceptable? How do you feel about working in an environment where being on call 24-7 is the actual expectation?

Some kirkland people get really lucky and their experiences are really good -- this is notably true for the Funds group, especially Funds regulatory. But, personally, the day I sent my resignation was the happiest and freest I had felt since joining and that's never what you're looking to say about a place you gave your blood, sweat & tears to. Saying this does not make me feel good, yk? But, the rep kirkland has on here is not for nothing. There were a lot of tears.

What group were you in? Considering a position.

sorry -- a double post.

[Anonymous User]

Old mid-level/young senior associate here at a DC office of a V10; practice is regulatory/lit. I'm considering a lateral move to a peer firm's DC office, and it looks like Kirkland may be an option. Posts here seem to paint Kirkland's transactional practice as a sweatshop; is that generally the same across the board and across offices? Also - the higher likelihood of becoming a partner is enticing (even if it's non-equity). Has anyone here moved to Kirkland specifically for the (non-equity) partnership prospects?

lol at thinking there’s literally any value to being a non-share partner (non-equity) at Kirkland. There was a good thread on this about a month ago. The upshot is in many ways it’s the worst of all possible worlds with nearly all the expectations of an equity partner (and in many ways more) but with total career path ambiguity and for roughly 1/10th the equivalent equity comp.

I mean, they make more than an equivalent senior associate at another firm, so I don't get this take.

they pay taxes like a partner and don't make partner $$ from my more limited understanding.

OP: TBQF if you like your current job then I would not lateral to K&E. The time that I worked there in one of the corp roles was objectively awful. The demands were unreasonable even for people expecting the demands to be unreasonable.

I personally, and again just a personal feeling, would not go back there, and nor would I recommend it to anybody else. But, it just depends: how much do you value your time? How much do you value having a working environment where being able to see your family is an expectation of the employee vs less acceptable? How do you feel about working in an environment where being on call 24-7 is the actual expectation?

Some kirkland people get really lucky and their experiences are really good -- this is notably true for the Funds group, especially Funds regulatory. But, personally, the day I sent my resignation was the happiest and freest I had felt since joining and that's never what you're looking to say about a place you gave your blood, sweat & tears to. Saying this does not make me feel good, yk? But, the rep kirkland has on here is not for nothing. There were a lot of tears.

What group were you in? Considering a position.

Poster from above: I was in Capital Markets and did some work in Funds Formation as well. Have a friend in funds regulatory who says it's a really great group. The capital markets' working environment was incredibly toxic. At the time that I was there, an entire swath of attorneys quit together with literally no place to go after. It was led by an almost senior associate who was on maybe 15-20 deals at the time of the big SPAC boom. He left and when he wanted to leave everyone who worked for him also left with him rather than stay, which is not unheard of. But, I cannot emphasize enough, they did not have jobs lined up after their resignation. They simply quit en masse saying that they would no longer work in that environment. For risk-averse people like lawyers, that's a big jump (I heard all of this direct from the horse's mouth contemporaneously).

Overall, the work culture felt extremely toxic to me. I lateraled to another firm (in the group I wanted to be in, not corporate general) and have had an absolutely wonderful time since leaving. I know people say that all big law is the same, but that's really not true. Some firms are substantially less toxic in their expectations of their attorneys' time. But, there are many advantages to the prestige of Kirkland and its brand recognition (Kirkland Signature FTW). Again, this is all my personal opinion and it's entirely possible other people have had great experiences.

Any intel on other transactional groups like IP and tax?