Kirkland Signing Bonuses Forum

[Anonymous User]

anyone know if K&E is offering remote work?

They are 100% offering remote work for certain markets where they don't have offices.

[Anonymous User]

The other related point is that KE's edge on year-end bonuses has been consistently shrinking for at least a decade now. That offsets some of the extra in signing and retention bonuses.

Underrated point. The whole "Kirkland shatters" thing is well in the past, and every year the median multiplier gets closer and closer to market. I think the firm tries to keep it at or above 1.2x but it is right around there these days for 2000 hours and a 3 rating. And you can look at the Kirkland bonus thread and see examples of people who bill 2400 or 2500 and still are below 1.5x (though also many who go above that, but still are a ways from 2.0x).

Last year, they got us all on a Zoom with a bigshot partner who told us these were truly incredible bonuses, the biggest of all time - and then they stuck with their same-old 1.2x-ish median and slapped on the fall special bonuses that everyone else had already been paid. It was as if they hoped that we just didn't know those were happening so that we'd think Kirkland was being especially generous.

A lateral in a hot group is going to have a worse QoL at Kirkland than at many other firms; the extra compensation to make up for that isn't the same delta as it used to be.

[Anonymous User]

Is K&E giving out retention bonuses? Anyone have data points for amounts?

[Anonymous User]

These K&E signing bonuses are both fascinating and sad that K&E has to resort to paying them at this level to attract talent.

I think it's more sad that we're clearly all being massively underpaid. K&E is able to pay people an entire first year's salary in a one-time payment while other firms are nickel and diming their associates, and you somehow think that speaks more about K&E than the other firms where they are clearly being ridiculously cheap.

[Joachim2017]

These K&E signing bonuses are both fascinating and sad that K&E has to resort to paying them at this level to attract talent.

I think it's more sad that we're clearly all being massively underpaid. K&E is able to pay people an entire first year's salary in a one-time payment while other firms are nickel and diming their associates, and you somehow think that speaks more about K&E than the other firms where they are clearly being ridiculously cheap.

This is the correct take. After joining a firm and getting into the weeds of the practice day-to-day, associates somehow lose sight of the difference between (a) how much they are billed out at; and (b) how much they themselves take home (even before taxes).

But yes, it's also true that the "K&E-shatters-market-bonus" talking point is a thing of the past. The EOY bonus now is typically what, 1.2x the market? That's not "shattering" the market. Hell, a crippled firm like Boies Schiller still pays associates more than that.

[tsk222]

A senior associate friend received a $400k signing bonus in a newly opened K&E office. They started at $200k and he negotiated to $400k without a problem.

This senior associate could have made nearly a million dollars this year then, if the 2020 year end bonus paid in January and they got the entire 2021 special bonus from their old firm (365k base + 64k special bonus + 90k 2020 year end bonus + 400k Kirkland signing bonus = $919k). Not too shabby.

[Anonymous User]

These K&E signing bonuses are both fascinating and sad that K&E has to resort to paying them at this level to attract talent.

I think it's more sad that we're clearly all being massively underpaid. K&E is able to pay people an entire first year's salary in a one-time payment while other firms are nickel and diming their associates, and you somehow think that speaks more about K&E than the other firms where they are clearly being ridiculously cheap.

It's total sour grapes. People on here have had it toward Kirkland for the past 5 years. Kirkland is changing the market in the same way that Skadden did in the 80s and people at lesser performing firms don't like that so they find any excuse they can to shit on K&E, the passive aggressive point above being Ex. A.

[Anonymous User]

These K&E signing bonuses are both fascinating and sad that K&E has to resort to paying them at this level to attract talent.

I think it's more sad that we're clearly all being massively underpaid. K&E is able to pay people an entire first year's salary in a one-time payment while other firms are nickel and diming their associates, and you somehow think that speaks more about K&E than the other firms where they are clearly being ridiculously cheap.

It's total sour grapes. People on here have had it toward Kirkland for the past 5 years. Kirkland is changing the market in the same way that Skadden did in the 80s and people at lesser performing firms don't like that so they find any excuse they can to shit on K&E, the passive aggressive point above being Ex. A.

Lol sure whatever you have to tell yourself.

K&E isn’t paying insane signing bonuses because they are a leading innovator, they are paying them because their high PPP is built on a mountain of burnt out associates and people with options wouldn’t go to K&E except to collect the outsized bonus because it is a materially worse place to work than any other biglaw shop.

Source: former Cravath associate who knows that none of my friends (virtually all of whom have left or are leaving) thought about K&E despite the massive $$.

[Anonymous User]

These K&E signing bonuses are both fascinating and sad that K&E has to resort to paying them at this level to attract talent.

I think it's more sad that we're clearly all being massively underpaid. K&E is able to pay people an entire first year's salary in a one-time payment while other firms are nickel and diming their associates, and you somehow think that speaks more about K&E than the other firms where they are clearly being ridiculously cheap.

It's total sour grapes. People on here have had it toward Kirkland for the past 5 years. Kirkland is changing the market in the same way that Skadden did in the 80s and people at lesser performing firms don't like that so they find any excuse they can to shit on K&E, the passive aggressive point above being Ex. A.

Found Andy Calder!

[Anonymous User]

These K&E signing bonuses are both fascinating and sad that K&E has to resort to paying them at this level to attract talent.

I think it's more sad that we're clearly all being massively underpaid. K&E is able to pay people an entire first year's salary in a one-time payment while other firms are nickel and diming their associates, and you somehow think that speaks more about K&E than the other firms where they are clearly being ridiculously cheap.

It's total sour grapes. People on here have had it toward Kirkland for the past 5 years. Kirkland is changing the market in the same way that Skadden did in the 80s and people at lesser performing firms don't like that so they find any excuse they can to shit on K&E, the passive aggressive point above being Ex. A.

Lol sure whatever you have to tell yourself.

K&E isn’t paying insane signing bonuses because they are a leading innovator, they are paying them because their high PPP is built on a mountain of burnt out associates and people with options wouldn’t go to K&E except to collect the outsized bonus because it is a materially worse place to work than any other biglaw shop.

Source: former Cravath associate who knows that none of my friends (virtually all of whom have left or are leaving) thought about K&E despite the massive $$.

Lol at being a former Cravath associate and thinking K&E is a shitty firm to work at. There is no way that the average number of hours billed between Cravath and K&E is not similar. At least at K&E you don't have to be married to the hip of some random partner on his deathbed.

I'm not even at either of these firms, but all of these are an absurd take. K&E is not as unique as K&E likes to think - in fact, many firms use its model (their associates/partners have all just drunk the kirkaid way too hard).

Cravath is unique. But, in a uniquely shitty way.

[Anonymous User]

A senior associate friend received a $400k signing bonus in a newly opened K&E office. They started at $200k and he negotiated to $400k without a problem.

Damn. I can’t believe the firm still manages to have insanely high PPP numbers, even after throwing around reckless money like this.

It's really not reckless. A senior associate is billing at least $1k an hour, so we're talking about 2 months worth of work.

Lol midlevels are billing over $1k/hour here. I mean shit, you start at like $600 for a first year. The firm is an incredible money-printing machine and everyone they can poach is a dollar sign in a suit.

[Anonymous User]

These K&E signing bonuses are both fascinating and sad that K&E has to resort to paying them at this level to attract talent.

I think it's more sad that we're clearly all being massively underpaid. K&E is able to pay people an entire first year's salary in a one-time payment while other firms are nickel and diming their associates, and you somehow think that speaks more about K&E than the other firms where they are clearly being ridiculously cheap.

It's total sour grapes. People on here have had it toward Kirkland for the past 5 years. Kirkland is changing the market in the same way that Skadden did in the 80s and people at lesser performing firms don't like that so they find any excuse they can to shit on K&E, the passive aggressive point above being Ex. A.

Lol sure whatever you have to tell yourself.

K&E isn’t paying insane signing bonuses because they are a leading innovator, they are paying them because their high PPP is built on a mountain of burnt out associates and people with options wouldn’t go to K&E except to collect the outsized bonus because it is a materially worse place to work than any other biglaw shop.

Source: former Cravath associate who knows that none of my friends (virtually all of whom have left or are leaving) thought about K&E despite the massive $$.

Lol at being a former Cravath associate and thinking K&E is a shitty firm to work at. There is no way that the average number of hours billed between Cravath and K&E is not similar. At least at K&E you don't have to be married to the hip of some random partner on his deathbed.

I'm not even at either of these firms, but all of these are an absurd take. K&E is not as unique as K&E likes to think - in fact, many firms use its model (their associates/partners have all just drunk the kirkaid way too hard).

Cravath is unique. But, in a uniquely shitty way.

Yeah guy who has never worked at firm A says firm A is “materially worse place to work”, but is also (former) member of firm B known to be arguably materially worst place to work (and is definitely also built on burnt out associates).

I genuinely wonder with comments from people like our glorious former Cravath associate if behind it all is some weird disdain for another firm that does pretty well hiring from some pretty comparatively lower schools. (“whatever you have to tell yourself” - what do you mean by that?) I would bet that the former Cravath associate is HCCN. It’s all the same, dude.

Last I checked, Cravath makes a similar amount of money, the associates work similar hours, and yet, despite all of that, their associates are paid less or the same as they are at other firms. Is that whatever you have to tell yourself means?

[Anonymous User]

These K&E signing bonuses are both fascinating and sad that K&E has to resort to paying them at this level to attract talent.

I think it's more sad that we're clearly all being massively underpaid. K&E is able to pay people an entire first year's salary in a one-time payment while other firms are nickel and diming their associates, and you somehow think that speaks more about K&E than the other firms where they are clearly being ridiculously cheap.

It's total sour grapes. People on here have had it toward Kirkland for the past 5 years. Kirkland is changing the market in the same way that Skadden did in the 80s and people at lesser performing firms don't like that so they find any excuse they can to shit on K&E, the passive aggressive point above being Ex. A.

Lol sure whatever you have to tell yourself.

K&E isn’t paying insane signing bonuses because they are a leading innovator, they are paying them because their high PPP is built on a mountain of burnt out associates and people with options wouldn’t go to K&E except to collect the outsized bonus because it is a materially worse place to work than any other biglaw shop.

Source: former Cravath associate who knows that none of my friends (virtually all of whom have left or are leaving) thought about K&E despite the massive $$.

Weird take. Virtually every industry - finace, tech, etc - give out big bonuses to poach talented individuals. Not sure why you are trying to make big law more important than it really is.

[MarcusH]

These K&E signing bonuses are both fascinating and sad that K&E has to resort to paying them at this level to attract talent.

I think it's more sad that we're clearly all being massively underpaid. K&E is able to pay people an entire first year's salary in a one-time payment while other firms are nickel and diming their associates, and you somehow think that speaks more about K&E than the other firms where they are clearly being ridiculously cheap.

It's total sour grapes. People on here have had it toward Kirkland for the past 5 years. Kirkland is changing the market in the same way that Skadden did in the 80s and people at lesser performing firms don't like that so they find any excuse they can to shit on K&E, the passive aggressive point above being Ex. A.

Lol sure whatever you have to tell yourself.

K&E isn’t paying insane signing bonuses because they are a leading innovator, they are paying them because their high PPP is built on a mountain of burnt out associates and people with options wouldn’t go to K&E except to collect the outsized bonus because it is a materially worse place to work than any other biglaw shop.

Source: former Cravath associate who knows that none of my friends (virtually all of whom have left or are leaving) thought about K&E despite the massive $$.

Weird take. Virtually every industry - finace, tech, etc - give out big bonuses to poach talented individuals. Not sure why you are trying to make big law more important than it really is.

Very odd take by the x-CSM person; I'm not at KE and have no interest in taking a signing bonus to go to KE because I would be afraid of the hours and expectations (which I believe are likely still less than CSM Corporate/M&A), but as an outsider, you cannot deny that their forms (though long and full of crazy cross references), resources and willingness to make those types of investments in their own business (at least within the funds group) make it a go to destination for all sorts of people.

[Anonymous User]

It’s strange to me how much people have to talk about and disparage Kirkland. Totally cool if you don’t want to work there or don’t like some people who work there, but they’re paying people lots of money and offering sweet perks. This has positive effects that ripple across the associate labor market and benefit many of us

[Anonymous User]

I'm doubting these $250k signing bonuses. I have two mid-level friends in M&A from V50s who lateraled to K&E M&A and received $100k (after some negotiation).

[Sackboy]

I'm doubting these $250k signing bonuses. I have two mid-level friends in M&A from V50s who lateraled to K&E M&A and received $100k (after some negotiation).

The press has reported bonuses even higher than $250k, so I don't know why you are doubting them. I personally know someone who got approached to join an M&A support group at Kirkland with a $250k signing bonus.

[Anonymous User]

I'm doubting these $250k signing bonuses. I have two mid-level friends in M&A from V50s who lateraled to K&E M&A and received $100k (after some negotiation).

Because they came from V50s. I’m at a V10 M&A and have been told by a recruiter explicitly that my signing bonus would be $200k minimum if I wanted to move to Kirkland.

[Anonymous User]

It’s strange to me how much people have to talk about and disparage Kirkland. Totally cool if you don’t want to work there or don’t like some people who work there, but they’re paying people lots of money and offering sweet perks. This has positive effects that ripple across the associate labor market and benefit many of us

To your point, I think Kirkland is actually a lynchpin in the proliferation of raises across markets. Kirkland is NOT a first mover and never will be, but they can also be relied to never allow anyone to pay more than them (except boutiques and boutique-ish places like Wachtell).

So if some other firm in NYC or wherever raises, you KNOW Kirkland will immediately match and try to exceed those bonuses. But unlike a lot of the big NYC firms, Kirkland has presence in a bunch of other markets where it is a large threat with hyper-aggressive recruiting practices. Do the firms in Boston or Texas or wherever really give a shit about what Cravath or some other NYC place do? Not really. But they DO care if a firm like Kirkland carries that raise to their doorstep.

The same is certainly true for other firms with lots of offices like Latham, but Kirkland’s relentless poaching really makes it a key element of the process.

[Anonymous User]

It’s strange to me how much people have to talk about and disparage Kirkland. Totally cool if you don’t want to work there or don’t like some people who work there, but they’re paying people lots of money and offering sweet perks. This has positive effects that ripple across the associate labor market and benefit many of us

To your point, I think Kirkland is actually a lynchpin in the proliferation of raises across markets. Kirkland is NOT a first mover and never will be, but they can also be relied to never allow anyone to pay more than them (except boutiques and boutique-ish places like Wachtell).

So if some other firm in NYC or wherever raises, you KNOW Kirkland will immediately match and try to exceed those bonuses. But unlike a lot of the big NYC firms, Kirkland has presence in a bunch of other markets where it is a large threat with hyper-aggressive recruiting practices. Do the firms in Boston or Texas or wherever really give a shit about what Cravath or some other NYC place do? Not really. But they DO care if a firm like Kirkland carries that raise to their doorstep.

The same is certainly true for other firms with lots of offices like Latham, but Kirkland’s relentless poaching really makes it a key element of the process.

It wasn't that long ago that comp was thought of as market based and people would use "New York market" as a meaningful term. Kirkland is a big reason (along with many other firms) why that is no longer the case for the reasons you lay out. You can go to Salt Lake City or Austin now and know for a fact that you will get top of market comp. Kirkland never, ever moves early on bonuses - they will wait for the market to settle, and then give you a 20% premium on it at a minimum basically. And they will always match salary movement.

So biglaw compensation is truly nationwide now (and has been for at least a few years). It's going to be really interesting to see how that affects associate decisions. Like, if you can make KE money working in Austin, which is a very desirable place to live as a 20-something, will those roles become harder to get than similar V10 positions elsewhere - in New York or even in Chicago or Boston or whatever?

And Kirkland has played a major role in this paradigm shift for the reasons described. There are a lot of bad things about KE (I work here, I know) but it is a comfort to know that you are going to make the most money you can doing the job while you're here, short of going to a Wachtell or boutique that I don't have the chops for anyway. No matter where I am located.

[thisismytlsuername]

It’s strange to me how much people have to talk about and disparage Kirkland. Totally cool if you don’t want to work there or don’t like some people who work there, but they’re paying people lots of money and offering sweet perks. This has positive effects that ripple across the associate labor market and benefit many of us

To your point, I think Kirkland is actually a lynchpin in the proliferation of raises across markets. Kirkland is NOT a first mover and never will be, but they can also be relied to never allow anyone to pay more than them (except boutiques and boutique-ish places like Wachtell).

So if some other firm in NYC or wherever raises, you KNOW Kirkland will immediately match and try to exceed those bonuses. But unlike a lot of the big NYC firms, Kirkland has presence in a bunch of other markets where it is a large threat with hyper-aggressive recruiting practices. Do the firms in Boston or Texas or wherever really give a shit about what Cravath or some other NYC place do? Not really. But they DO care if a firm like Kirkland carries that raise to their doorstep.

The same is certainly true for other firms with lots of offices like Latham, but Kirkland’s relentless poaching really makes it a key element of the process.

It wasn't that long ago that comp was thought of as market based and people would use "New York market" as a meaningful term. Kirkland is a big reason (along with many other firms) why that is no longer the case for the reasons you lay out. You can go to Salt Lake City or Austin now and know for a fact that you will get top of market comp. Kirkland never, ever moves early on bonuses - they will wait for the market to settle, and then give you a 20% premium on it at a minimum basically. And they will always match salary movement.

So biglaw compensation is truly nationwide now (and has been for at least a few years). It's going to be really interesting to see how that affects associate decisions. Like, if you can make KE money working in Austin, which is a very desirable place to live as a 20-something, will those roles become harder to get than similar V10 positions elsewhere - in New York or even in Chicago or Boston or whatever?

And Kirkland has played a major role in this paradigm shift for the reasons described. There are a lot of bad things about KE (I work here, I know) but it is a comfort to know that you are going to make the most money you can doing the job while you're here, short of going to a Wachtell or boutique that I don't have the chops for anyway. No matter where I am located.

It's always been harder to get a Biglaw job in Austin than in a major market, simply because there are so many fewer of them available. Even before Austin associates were making NY money, it was virtually impossible. People aren't going to be flocking to Salt Lake City now that Kirkland pays NY market there such that every other firm needs to match and there will suddenly be 2,000 biglaw lawyers there making NY money -- they'll hire a few Mormons every year and that's it.

[Anonymous User]

It’s strange to me how much people have to talk about and disparage Kirkland. Totally cool if you don’t want to work there or don’t like some people who work there, but they’re paying people lots of money and offering sweet perks. This has positive effects that ripple across the associate labor market and benefit many of us

I think the amount of "Kirkland cope" that goes on in here fuels the fire. Kirkland has destroyed its brand. Once the M&A boom is over, god help all of us.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath anon getting dragged above: my point isn’t that Cravath doesn’t also suck (I think it does!) it’s that K&E’s paying high signing bonuses is a sign of weakness, not strength. The kind of lateral candidates that they want don’t want to work there because it’s a well known dumpster fire and the high $$$ is a reaction to that reputation to try to get some of them to come anyway.

I would be lying if me and my friends hadn’t had the conversation about whether we think a year at K&E is worth the extra $$ but the consensus (among by anecdotal network) is no. Some people make a different calculation but if K&E weren’t viewed as being a less attractive option, why would they have to pay up for talent?

[Joachim2017]

Cravath anon getting dragged above: my point isn’t that Cravath doesn’t also suck (I think it does!) it’s that K&E’s paying high signing bonuses is a sign of weakness, not strength. The kind of lateral candidates that they want don’t want to work there because it’s a well known dumpster fire and the high $$$ is a reaction to that reputation to try to get some of them to come anyway.

I would be lying if me and my friends hadn’t had the conversation about whether we think a year at K&E is worth the extra $$ but the consensus (among by anecdotal network) is no. Some people make a different calculation but if K&E weren’t viewed as being a less attractive option, why would they have to pay up for talent?

I'm disappointed an actual Cravath associate has such an outdated and myopic outlook / lack of insight into the market in 2021.

First, a big part of the reason K&E pays higher lateral bonuses is that they need more bodies because of how much more work they do. The model is different from Cravath's in that (but only that) sense. They have more offices, more work, more often, and so they need more people.

Second, what world do you live in that you think Cravath "is viewed" (note the passive voice) any differently than Kirkland in terms of its reputation? The rest of us, from the outside, don't see Cravath much differently than Kirkland, certainly not in terms of quality of work or prestige.

It's not 1995 anymore, or even 2005. You need to wake up to the reality that Cravath is not in the same league as WLRK -- it's in the same league as Kirkland. The only difference between the firms is the long-term, slim, distant chance that if you make partner one day at Cravath, you'll be better off (and even then, that's if Cravath is still operating on the now-nearly-extinct lockstep model by then).

Not sure what you're hearing that makes you think KE is any more a "dumpster fire" than Cravath: both have attrition, both have gunners, both have demanding partners and work. The degree of each of these is different, again, because the scale is different. That's not a reflection of quality.

In short, Kirkland just pays more than Cravath. The bubble you live in just nets you less money for roughly the same amount of work. I'm sorry for you, but that's the reality.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath anon getting dragged above: my point isn’t that Cravath doesn’t also suck (I think it does!) it’s that K&E’s paying high signing bonuses is a sign of weakness, not strength. The kind of lateral candidates that they want don’t want to work there because it’s a well known dumpster fire and the high $$$ is a reaction to that reputation to try to get some of them to come anyway.

I would be lying if me and my friends hadn’t had the conversation about whether we think a year at K&E is worth the extra $$ but the consensus (among by anecdotal network) is no. Some people make a different calculation but if K&E weren’t viewed as being a less attractive option, why would they have to pay up for talent?

What a terrible take. K&E revenue is at extraordinary levels because of unprecedented client demand for their services, and to meet that demand they are throwing sacks of cash at associates, which doesn't even start to dent their PPP, which is absurdly high for a firm of their size. In what industry would anybody interpret this as a sign of weakness?