Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline 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: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:56 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:49 am
Sackboy wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:34 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:28 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:29 pm
Bumping to see if the shorter track actually resulted in more share partner promotions this year. Curious because considering an NSP offer.
They promoted over 60 NSPs to SPs this year.
This would be impressive if they had less than 4 billion NSPs.
It actually is a much larger number than I would have guessed because there were only 97 NSPs in this “class” who came up organically: https://www.kirkland.com/news/press-rel ... w-partners

Obviously many NSPs have come over as laterals since 2017 who would’ve been added to these ranks, and there are also some NSPs of October 2018 who would have just made partner under the new rules as well. But 60 SPs this year is still a lot.
It's very impressive. I know it's cool to jump on the K&E hate wagon here, but they should be applauded for making so many internal SP promotions.

Sackboy

Silver
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:14 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Sackboy » Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:04 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:46 am
Name another firm that made 60+ equity partners this year. Adjust for total attorney count if you must.

Now name another firm in a similar zip code for PPP that's made 25% as many equity partners.

Again, the 60+ SPs are internal promotions. That's pretty damn good, on top of all the lateral SPs brought in over the past year.
This is silly. A quick Google search showed me several firms that met that promotion rate on a per capita basis, including Chicago's #2. The "show me another firm doing it with the same PPP" is a bit silly too, as firms support different practices with different billing rates that alter overall PPP. Should a firm get automatically dinged for having a very profitable M&A group but also wanting to maintain a lower margin privacy group?

The real question is what is the NSP to SP promotion rate for [insert specific group] among KE vs the same group at [insert other firm]. My guess is that for any of the V20 or so it'd be similar, but KE just has more corporate folks as a proportion of the firm. If I have a firm with 600 lit attorneys and 400 M&A attorneys and I give 10% of M&A attorneys equity in a year and 3% of lit attorneys, my firm will have 58 new partners. If I run a firm that has 400 lit attorneys and 600 M&A attorneys and make promotions in the same percentages, I'd have 72 new partners. Should we all be shilling for the latter? No.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:32 am

Sackboy wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:04 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:46 am
Name another firm that made 60+ equity partners this year. Adjust for total attorney count if you must.

Now name another firm in a similar zip code for PPP that's made 25% as many equity partners.

Again, the 60+ SPs are internal promotions. That's pretty damn good, on top of all the lateral SPs brought in over the past year.
This is silly. A quick Google search showed me several firms that met that promotion rate on a per capita basis, including Chicago's #2. The "show me another firm doing it with the same PPP" is a bit silly too, as firms support different practices with different billing rates that alter overall PPP. Should a firm get automatically dinged for having a very profitable M&A group but also wanting to maintain a lower margin privacy group?

The real question is what is the NSP to SP promotion rate for [insert specific group] among KE vs the same group at [insert other firm]. My guess is that for any of the V20 or so it'd be similar, but KE just has more corporate folks as a proportion of the firm. If I have a firm with 600 lit attorneys and 400 M&A attorneys and I give 10% of M&A attorneys equity in a year and 3% of lit attorneys, my firm will have 58 new partners. If I run a firm that has 400 lit attorneys and 600 M&A attorneys and make promotions in the same percentages, I'd have 72 new partners. Should we all be shilling for the latter? No.
Is the Sidley announcement you're referring to reflect non-equity or equity partner promotions?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:36 am

Sackboy wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:04 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:46 am
Name another firm that made 60+ equity partners this year. Adjust for total attorney count if you must.

Now name another firm in a similar zip code for PPP that's made 25% as many equity partners.

Again, the 60+ SPs are internal promotions. That's pretty damn good, on top of all the lateral SPs brought in over the past year.
This is silly. A quick Google search showed me several firms that met that promotion rate on a per capita basis, including Chicago's #2. The "show me another firm doing it with the same PPP" is a bit silly too, as firms support different practices with different billing rates that alter overall PPP. Should a firm get automatically dinged for having a very profitable M&A group but also wanting to maintain a lower margin privacy group?

The real question is what is the NSP to SP promotion rate for [insert specific group] among KE vs the same group at [insert other firm]. My guess is that for any of the V20 or so it'd be similar, but KE just has more corporate folks as a proportion of the firm. If I have a firm with 600 lit attorneys and 400 M&A attorneys and I give 10% of M&A attorneys equity in a year and 3% of lit attorneys, my firm will have 58 new partners. If I run a firm that has 400 lit attorneys and 600 M&A attorneys and make promotions in the same percentages, I'd have 72 new partners. Should we all be shilling for the latter? No.
You're just moving the goalposts. You scoff about 60+ SP promotions, then want to split hairs among specific practice groups when called out on how asinine your take is?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:47 am

Anyone know if there are caps or targeted quotas for promotions on an office location basis?

Interested on others’ opinions on whether (and if so, when) NSPs in the new SLC market will make it or if it’s going to be an outlier superstar every five years.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:47 am
Anyone know if there are caps or targeted quotas for promotions on an office location basis?

Interested on others’ opinions on whether (and if so, when) NSPs in the new SLC market will make it or if it’s going to be an outlier superstar every five years.
I have no special insight on this other than being a K&E associate who chats with SP’s. My guess is probably no, because on just about every topic you could think of, the big question SP’s seem to ask themselves is “would this be profitable?” If yes, they do it with little hesitation, red tape, or bullshit. If no, they won’t do it (unless it has some intangibles that they expressly give weight to, like pro bono or diversity or good PR).

Given that overall mindset, I would be shocked if they had a potential SP promotion that they think would be an overall profitable move (like an NSP they’re confident would do well and make them lots of money, and would leave the firm if not promoted) and they refused to do it because of some kind of arbitrary geographical cap. Conversely, I would also be surprised if they were promoting SP’s in a less profitable office solely because they feel that office arbitrarily “deserves” more.

Sackboy

Silver
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:14 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Sackboy » Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:32 am
Is the Sidley announcement you're referring to reflect non-equity or equity partner promotions?
Sidley only has equity partners I believe. The non-equity partners they report to NALP are their "counsels". That's what a friend of mine told me who is married to a Sidley partner.

Sackboy

Silver
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:14 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Sackboy » Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:36 am
You're just moving the goalposts. You scoff about 60+ SP promotions, then want to split hairs among specific practice groups when called out on how asinine your take is?
Again, not scoffing. It's a fine number. It's just not as extraordinary as you're making it out to be. No need to be fragile. Also, if you're getting miffed by nuance, you picked the wrong profession. Great anon use though.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:56 pm

Sackboy wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:40 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:36 am
You're just moving the goalposts. You scoff about 60+ SP promotions, then want to split hairs among specific practice groups when called out on how asinine your take is?
Again, not scoffing. It's a fine number. It's just not as extraordinary as you're making it out to be. No need to be fragile. Also, if you're getting miffed by nuance, you picked the wrong profession. Great anon use though.
Complaining about anon use is Sackboy's go-to fallback argument. Kudos to your vigilante justice!

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Sackboy

Silver
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:14 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Sackboy » Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:56 pm
Sackboy wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:40 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:36 am
You're just moving the goalposts. You scoff about 60+ SP promotions, then want to split hairs among specific practice groups when called out on how asinine your take is?
Again, not scoffing. It's a fine number. It's just not as extraordinary as you're making it out to be. No need to be fragile. Also, if you're getting miffed by nuance, you picked the wrong profession. Great anon use though.
Complaining about anon use is Sackboy's go-to fallback argument. Kudos to your vigilante justice!
Think of it as more of a supplemental argument. I raised valid concerns with the importance of OP's statement. But, hey, fake news and yadda yadda. Who needs critical thinking anyway?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:41 pm

Sackboy wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:22 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:56 pm
Sackboy wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:40 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:36 am
You're just moving the goalposts. You scoff about 60+ SP promotions, then want to split hairs among specific practice groups when called out on how asinine your take is?
Again, not scoffing. It's a fine number. It's just not as extraordinary as you're making it out to be. No need to be fragile. Also, if you're getting miffed by nuance, you picked the wrong profession. Great anon use though.
Complaining about anon use is Sackboy's go-to fallback argument. Kudos to your vigilante justice!
Think of it as more of a supplemental argument. I raised valid concerns with the importance of OP's statement. But, hey, fake news and yadda yadda. Who needs critical thinking anyway?
Sounds like we should just pat both Sidley and Kirkland for promoting a lot of people to share partner? I don't know how promoting a significant amount - and verifiably more than many other V20 firms - to share partner is a bad thing.

That being said - I just jumped into the fray because you seem to be the only person who cares about anon use. It makes 0 difference whether one uses a fake username called Anonymous or a fake username called Sackboy. You're just upset you can't stalk people and look at their history to strengthen your weak arguments.

Sackboy

Silver
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:14 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Sackboy » Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:41 pm
Sounds like we should just pat both Sidley and Kirkland for promoting a lot of people to share partner? I don't know how promoting a significant amount - and verifiably more than many other V20 firms - to share partner is a bad thing.

That being said - I just jumped into the fray because you seem to be the only person who cares about anon use. It makes 0 difference whether one uses a fake username called Anonymous or a fake username called Sackboy. You're just upset you can't stalk people and look at their history to strengthen your weak arguments.
Yes, we should pat both on the back. The point was that many firms made significant numbers of equity partners last year. This is not an isolated KE thing, which is why I pointed out how silly it was that OP was flexing it as a good reason for someone to consider an NSP role at KE. I feel like I'm trying to explain something very simple over and over again to a band of glue huffing hooligans who just keep misconstruing a very basic statement.

I care about anon use, because if you've ever spent any amount of time on a forum you come to identify posters who have the ability to speak on certain issues with some level of authority and credibility and others who are flaming asshats. Posting under fake usernames like YouAreAWanker lets users assess posts better. I'm the only one who harps on it because the anon abusing crowd is generally a bunch of self-interested shitbags that don't care about this actually being a helpful community. So, congrats on that? There was a point in time in which this forum was a great deal of help to 0L, 1L, and beyond folks and a large part of that was because there was a big community of posters who had built reputations over 1000s of posts identifiable with them. Nealric is a good example of someone who can talk about tax and have authority and credibility due to his posting history. You cannot capture those same elements with "Anonymous User". This is a very simple concept.

thisismytlsuername

Bronze
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:22 pm

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by thisismytlsuername » Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:45 pm

Do the people who lateraled in as NSPs with a 1 or 2-year guarantee count as "internal promotions"? If so, that would explain a lot of the high number, and also, lol.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:30 pm

Sackboy wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:29 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:41 pm
Sounds like we should just pat both Sidley and Kirkland for promoting a lot of people to share partner? I don't know how promoting a significant amount - and verifiably more than many other V20 firms - to share partner is a bad thing.

That being said - I just jumped into the fray because you seem to be the only person who cares about anon use. It makes 0 difference whether one uses a fake username called Anonymous or a fake username called Sackboy. You're just upset you can't stalk people and look at their history to strengthen your weak arguments.
Yes, we should pat both on the back. The point was that many firms made significant numbers of equity partners last year. This is not an isolated KE thing, which is why I pointed out how silly it was that OP was flexing it as a good reason for someone to consider an NSP role at KE. I feel like I'm trying to explain something very simple over and over again to a band of glue huffing hooligans who just keep misconstruing a very basic statement.

I care about anon use, because if you've ever spent any amount of time on a forum you come to identify posters who have the ability to speak on certain issues with some level of authority and credibility and others who are flaming asshats. Posting under fake usernames like YouAreAWanker lets users assess posts better. I'm the only one who harps on it because the anon abusing crowd is generally a bunch of self-interested shitbags that don't care about this actually being a helpful community. So, congrats on that? There was a point in time in which this forum was a great deal of help to 0L, 1L, and beyond folks and a large part of that was because there was a big community of posters who had built reputations over 1000s of posts identifiable with them. Nealric is a good example of someone who can talk about tax and have authority and credibility due to his posting history. You cannot capture those same elements with "Anonymous User". This is a very simple concept.
yep...

Anonymous User
Posts: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:13 pm

Sackboy wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:29 pm
I care about anon use, because if you've ever spent any amount of time on a forum you come to identify posters who have the ability to speak on certain issues with some level of authority and credibility and others who are flaming asshats.
Looking at your post history (e.g., derailing the match news only thread without an apology), I'd put you squarely in the flaming asshat category.

Joachim2017

Bronze
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:17 pm

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Joachim2017 » Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:13 pm
Sackboy wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:29 pm
I care about anon use, because if you've ever spent any amount of time on a forum you come to identify posters who have the ability to speak on certain issues with some level of authority and credibility and others who are flaming asshats.
Looking at your post history (e.g., derailing the match news only thread without an apology), I'd put you squarely in the flaming asshat category.
At the risk of helping derail the thread, I'll chime in to say I agree with Sackboy's point that posting under a single identifiable username over time is helpful in assessing credibility and the usefulness of people's comments (not to mention maintaining some semblance of a community). I for example have been helped by people on this forum in various ways over the years (mostly in the investment 101 and tax threads, but also when it comes to thinking about lateraling and firm-specific gossip), but to decide whether to take additional time to look into the offered comments/advice, it was helpful to briefly review user posting history.

We don't need to be sticklers, but the general rule of not posting anonymously unless it's a potentially sensitive subject/post makes sense and should be obvious to everyone, people who post here often as well (or even especially) people who only come here very occasionally.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:39 pm

Joachim2017 wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:26 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:13 pm
Sackboy wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:29 pm
I care about anon use, because if you've ever spent any amount of time on a forum you come to identify posters who have the ability to speak on certain issues with some level of authority and credibility and others who are flaming asshats.
Looking at your post history (e.g., derailing the match news only thread without an apology), I'd put you squarely in the flaming asshat category.
At the risk of helping derail the thread, I'll chime in to say I agree with Sackboy's point that posting under a single identifiable username over time is helpful in assessing credibility and the usefulness of people's comments (not to mention maintaining some semblance of a community). I for example have been helped by people on this forum in various ways over the years (mostly in the investment 101 and tax threads, but also when it comes to thinking about lateraling and firm-specific gossip), but to decide whether to take additional time to look into the offered comments/advice, it was helpful to briefly review user posting history.

We don't need to be sticklers, but the general rule of not posting anonymously unless it's a potentially sensitive subject/post makes sense and should be obvious to everyone, people who post here often as well (or even especially) people who only come here very occasionally.
This is a very fair point, and I'm completely fine with you assessing credibility based on anonymity and coming to the immediately conclusion that I have none. That is your prerogative. But its just infantile to constantly whine about ppl posting anon. (I'm a diff anon - or am I...)

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

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


Anonymous User
Posts: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:34 pm

thisismytlsuername wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:45 pm
Do the people who lateraled in as NSPs with a 1 or 2-year guarantee count as "internal promotions"? If so, that would explain a lot of the high number, and also, lol.

What do you mean guarantees? Guarantees to SP or just that they won’t be fired in two months?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:47 am

thisismytlsuername wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:45 pm
Do the people who lateraled in as NSPs with a 1 or 2-year guarantee count as "internal promotions"? If so, that would explain a lot of the high number, and also, lol.
This doesn’t really happen. Nobody guarantees lateral NSPs shares.

FF2020

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:10 pm

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by FF2020 » Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:32 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:47 am
This doesn’t really happen. Nobody guarantees lateral NSPs shares.
Do the Wachtell and Cravath senior associates come in as equity partners?

thisismytlsuername

Bronze
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:22 pm

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by thisismytlsuername » Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:16 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:47 am
thisismytlsuername wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:45 pm
Do the people who lateraled in as NSPs with a 1 or 2-year guarantee count as "internal promotions"? If so, that would explain a lot of the high number, and also, lol.
This doesn’t really happen. Nobody guarantees lateral NSPs shares.
You can quibble over the word "guarantee" but there are certainly plenty of NSPs who come over with the promise of getting shares in 1-2 years, and do.

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!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:12 am

thisismytlsuername wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:16 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:47 am
thisismytlsuername wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:45 pm
Do the people who lateraled in as NSPs with a 1 or 2-year guarantee count as "internal promotions"? If so, that would explain a lot of the high number, and also, lol.
This doesn’t really happen. Nobody guarantees lateral NSPs shares.
You can quibble over the word "guarantee" but there are certainly plenty of NSPs who come over with the promise of getting shares in 1-2 years, and do.
Agreed. I'm at a competitor firm and I was promised/guaranteed equity partner this year after lateraling a year ago. If, for whatever reason, I don't make equity partner (even if it's my fault), then I get a one-time $500k bonus. I'm sure that Kirkland does something similar.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:16 pm

thisismytlsuername wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:16 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:47 am
thisismytlsuername wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:45 pm
Do the people who lateraled in as NSPs with a 1 or 2-year guarantee count as "internal promotions"? If so, that would explain a lot of the high number, and also, lol.
This doesn’t really happen. Nobody guarantees lateral NSPs shares.
You can quibble over the word "guarantee" but there are certainly plenty of NSPs who come over with the promise of getting shares in 1-2 years, and do.
Different anon but this isn't just a quibble. Yes we recruit plenty of people on the premise (not promise) of "do a couple years in the NSP ranks and then we'll put you up for shares." It's worked out well right now with every piece of the firm growing like bananas, but if there's ever a downturn, even just in a specific practice group not necessarily more broadly in the firm or legal industry, you can bet those "then you'll get shares" claims would disappear. It's easy to be magnanimous when everything's going well and far harder when things get difficult. We never sign a piece of paper guaranteeing shares. The advice I've gotten from plenty of people before when discussing lateral options is "a path to equity isn't equity."

thisismytlsuername

Bronze
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:22 pm

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by thisismytlsuername » Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:16 pm
thisismytlsuername wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:16 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:47 am
thisismytlsuername wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:45 pm
Do the people who lateraled in as NSPs with a 1 or 2-year guarantee count as "internal promotions"? If so, that would explain a lot of the high number, and also, lol.
This doesn’t really happen. Nobody guarantees lateral NSPs shares.
You can quibble over the word "guarantee" but there are certainly plenty of NSPs who come over with the promise of getting shares in 1-2 years, and do.
Different anon but this isn't just a quibble. Yes we recruit plenty of people on the premise (not promise) of "do a couple years in the NSP ranks and then we'll put you up for shares." It's worked out well right now with every piece of the firm growing like bananas, but if there's ever a downturn, even just in a specific practice group not necessarily more broadly in the firm or legal industry, you can bet those "then you'll get shares" claims would disappear. It's easy to be magnanimous when everything's going well and far harder when things get difficult. We never sign a piece of paper guaranteeing shares. The advice I've gotten from plenty of people before when discussing lateral options is "a path to equity isn't equity."
Ok buddy. How about this -- does the "internal promotions" number include people who came over as NSPs on a 1 or 2 year look and then made shares? Because if so, it's bullshit.

Happy now?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland shortens equity eligibility timeline

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:39 pm

thisismytlsuername wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:31 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:16 pm
thisismytlsuername wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:16 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:47 am
thisismytlsuername wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:45 pm
Do the people who lateraled in as NSPs with a 1 or 2-year guarantee count as "internal promotions"? If so, that would explain a lot of the high number, and also, lol.
This doesn’t really happen. Nobody guarantees lateral NSPs shares.
You can quibble over the word "guarantee" but there are certainly plenty of NSPs who come over with the promise of getting shares in 1-2 years, and do.
Different anon but this isn't just a quibble. Yes we recruit plenty of people on the premise (not promise) of "do a couple years in the NSP ranks and then we'll put you up for shares." It's worked out well right now with every piece of the firm growing like bananas, but if there's ever a downturn, even just in a specific practice group not necessarily more broadly in the firm or legal industry, you can bet those "then you'll get shares" claims would disappear. It's easy to be magnanimous when everything's going well and far harder when things get difficult. We never sign a piece of paper guaranteeing shares. The advice I've gotten from plenty of people before when discussing lateral options is "a path to equity isn't equity."
Ok buddy. How about this -- does the "internal promotions" number include people who came over as NSPs on a 1 or 2 year look and then made shares? Because if so, it's bullshit.

Happy now?
I don't give enough of a shit about this discussion to even track the point you're trying to make. I'm not going to waste my time on TLS debating partner promotion stats. I'm just pointing out that people need to be careful w/ assuming when you're lateraling into somewhere, even Kirkland, that talk about a path to shares = shares because it doesn't and there's a real risk there which gets ignored when times are extra good

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”