Kirkland Megathread Forum

[Anonymous User]

Lol Kirkland is becoming the next DLA Piper. Pushes out the Babe Ruth of appellate law (the crown jewel of litigation) but opens offices in Salt Lake City and Miami. This reminds me of Boeing letting the accountants run the show and sidelining the engineers. $$$ in the short-run, outpaced by Airbus in the long-run.

This. Kirkland is telling all the top law students in the country (think coifs/magnas who are snagging COA and SCOTUS clerkships) to GTFO. Kirkland wants to be a McDonald's that makes $$$$$, not a Michelin 3 star that makes $$. Is that a worthwhile tradeoff? Maybe yes, maybe not. Either way, Kirkland is becoming a place where mediocre T14ers go to become transactional cogs for boomer partners who care only about making obscene amounts of money. No reason why the cream of the crop coming out of law schools today should choose a place like that.

[Anonymous User]

Lol Kirkland is becoming the next DLA Piper. Pushes out the Babe Ruth of appellate law (the crown jewel of litigation) but opens offices in Salt Lake City and Miami. This reminds me of Boeing letting the accountants run the show and sidelining the engineers. $$$ in the short-run, outpaced by Airbus in the long-run.

This. Kirkland is telling all the top law students in the country (think coifs/magnas who are snagging COA and SCOTUS clerkships) to GTFO. Kirkland wants to be a McDonald's that makes $$$$$, not a Michelin 3 star that makes $$. Is that a worthwhile tradeoff? Maybe yes, maybe not. Either way, Kirkland is becoming a place where mediocre T14ers go to become transactional cogs for boomer partners who care only about making obscene amounts of money. No reason why the cream of the crop coming out of law schools today should choose a place like that.

im curious what “michelin star” firms exist that don’t work their associates just as hard as kirkland?

[Anonymous User]

I do not work at Kirkland and have no idea if this will be good or bad for Kirkland's business in the long-run. But constructively firing Paul Clement b/c you're afraid of some client is just pathetic lol.

It's pretty clear what happened - some bigshot awas mad and whined about Kirkland being on briefs on gun stuff, and instead of saying, "Hey, Paul is the most important appellate lawyer of his generation, he's been working on these issues for two decades, we don't always agree with him but he has the firm's support to argue important cases before the Supreme Court of the United States" -- they rolled over, because they were scared that the client would hire someone else.

Like, does anyone actually believe *Kirkland as an institution* gives a shit about guns? No. Paul Clement has been working there for what, a decade? They have a big conservative appellate practice. Never been an issue before.

So it's client-driven.

And if Cooley can tell Elon Musk to go fuck himself when he tried to get some random associate fired for working at the SEC, pretty sure Kirkland can tell some whiny GC that Paul fucking Clement can represent whomever he wants.

What losers

[Anonymous User]

I do not work at Kirkland and have no idea if this will be good or bad for Kirkland's business in the long-run. But constructively firing Paul Clement b/c you're afraid of some client is just pathetic lol.

It's pretty clear what happened - some bigshot awas mad and whined about Kirkland being on briefs on gun stuff, and instead of saying, "Hey, Paul is the most important appellate lawyer of his generation, he's been working on these issues for two decades, we don't always agree with him but he has the firm's support to argue important cases before the Supreme Court of the United States" -- they rolled over, because they were scared that the client would hire someone else.

Like, does anyone actually believe *Kirkland as an institution* gives a shit about guns? No. Paul Clement has been working there for what, a decade? They have a big conservative appellate practice. Never been an issue before.

So it's client-driven.

And if Cooley can tell Elon Musk to go fuck himself when he tried to get some random associate fired for working at the SEC, pretty sure Kirkland can tell some whiny GC that Paul fucking Clement can represent whomever he wants.

What losers

+1. It must have been driven by a top-10 (repeat) client, think like Bain. And the fact that we didn't tell them to fuck off doesn't speak too highly of the integrity of the firm's leadership although maybe that writing was already on the wall given our reputation for being willing to do anything for anyone as long as its profit maximizing to the partners. Also, this fits the longer term trend story of Kirkland as a place where its storied litigation history and reputation is being consumed by the transactional group on the way to making the firm very, very rich. Still cannot believe we effectively fired Paul Clement it's legitimately shocking.

[Anonymous User]

This feels less like a PE fund and more like tech nonsense. PE funds know they're pretending to care, tech firms forgot

[Anonymous User]

Knowing Kirkland, if he was that important to the operation, he'd still be there.

I think the point a few of us are trying to make, maybe inartfully, is there's a danger as K&E becomes so obsessed w/ profitability of missing longer term, harder to quantify benefits in a way that ironically is ultimately bad for the firm. I don't know how much money an elite appellate practice can ever bring, but there are hard-to-capture but I think real reputational benefits to having someone of Clement's caliber as the head of your appellate practice that might get ignored if all the Firm Committee is doing is crunching the latest quarterly profit figures and saying "eh, who cares, let him go, we have PE deals to do."

I'm the "too cynical" poster from above. I actually agree with this. I don't think this particular firing hurts KE's reputational reputation. But certainly creating outsourced service centers throughout the midwest full of ppl who technically have a pulse and some of whom may even have brains to churn deal docs may have long term adverse effects.

[Anonymous User]

Knowing Kirkland, if he was that important to the operation, he'd still be there.

I think the point a few of us are trying to make, maybe inartfully, is there's a danger as K&E becomes so obsessed w/ profitability of missing longer term, harder to quantify benefits in a way that ironically is ultimately bad for the firm. I don't know how much money an elite appellate practice can ever bring, but there are hard-to-capture but I think real reputational benefits to having someone of Clement's caliber as the head of your appellate practice that might get ignored if all the Firm Committee is doing is crunching the latest quarterly profit figures and saying "eh, who cares, let him go, we have PE deals to do."

I'm the "too cynical" poster from above. I actually agree with this. I don't think this particular firing hurts KE's reputational reputation. But certainly creating outsourced service centers throughout the midwest full of ppl who technically have a pulse and some of whom may even have brains to churn deal docs may have long term adverse effects.

Definitely a massive reputation hit among ambitious future litigator-types. Everyone's talking about this. But in any event, just a weak, sad, pathetic move.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland's a transactional shop now, through and through. O how the mighty have fallen!

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is basically becoming the Walmart of law firms. No one can deny that it makes tons of money, but no one respects them. Just a bunch of pathetic money grubbers.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is basically becoming the Walmart of law firms. No one can deny that it makes tons of money, but no one respects them. Just a bunch of pathetic money grubbers.

no way you’re not still in law school

[Anonymous User]

Knowing Kirkland, if he was that important to the operation, he'd still be there.

I think the point a few of us are trying to make, maybe inartfully, is there's a danger as K&E becomes so obsessed w/ profitability of missing longer term, harder to quantify benefits in a way that ironically is ultimately bad for the firm. I don't know how much money an elite appellate practice can ever bring, but there are hard-to-capture but I think real reputational benefits to having someone of Clement's caliber as the head of your appellate practice that might get ignored if all the Firm Committee is doing is crunching the latest quarterly profit figures and saying "eh, who cares, let him go, we have PE deals to do."

I'm the "too cynical" poster from above. I actually agree with this. I don't think this particular firing hurts KE's reputational reputation. But certainly creating outsourced service centers throughout the midwest full of ppl who technically have a pulse and some of whom may even have brains to churn deal docs may have long term adverse effects.

Definitely a massive reputation hit among ambitious future litigator-types. Everyone's talking about this. But in any event, just a weak, sad, pathetic move.

Meh. Think this is much more about the partners today being quite socially liberal, and also the very strong disadvantages of a socially conservative reputation when it comes to associate recruiting. Litigation is of declining value to big firms, and everyone needs to bring in enough competent bodies to do the mounds of corporate work that drive profitability today. Literally no advantage to having a visibly socially conservative practice group in your firm today.

[Anonymous User]

Knowing Kirkland, if he was that important to the operation, he'd still be there.

I think the point a few of us are trying to make, maybe inartfully, is there's a danger as K&E becomes so obsessed w/ profitability of missing longer term, harder to quantify benefits in a way that ironically is ultimately bad for the firm. I don't know how much money an elite appellate practice can ever bring, but there are hard-to-capture but I think real reputational benefits to having someone of Clement's caliber as the head of your appellate practice that might get ignored if all the Firm Committee is doing is crunching the latest quarterly profit figures and saying "eh, who cares, let him go, we have PE deals to do."

I'm the "too cynical" poster from above. I actually agree with this. I don't think this particular firing hurts KE's reputational reputation. But certainly creating outsourced service centers throughout the midwest full of ppl who technically have a pulse and some of whom may even have brains to churn deal docs may have long term adverse effects.

Definitely a massive reputation hit among ambitious future litigator-types. Everyone's talking about this. But in any event, just a weak, sad, pathetic move.

Meh. Think this is much more about the partners today being quite socially liberal, and also the very strong disadvantages of a socially conservative reputation when it comes to associate recruiting. Litigation is of declining value to big firms, and everyone needs to bring in enough competent bodies to do the mounds of corporate work that drive profitability today. Literally no advantage to having a visibly socially conservative practice group in your firm today.

If the play is to get hordes of medianish fungible law students from the T14s to staff your corporate machine, this logic makes sense. Two things can be same at the same time. If you're an ambitious future litigator with excellent grades, no way you're going to a Kirkland now.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is basically becoming the Walmart of law firms. No one can deny that it makes tons of money, but no one respects them. Just a bunch of pathetic money grubbers.

no way you’re not still in law school

ok congrats on working for such a preffftigious firm. must be proud. no way u didn't put up a linkedin post when you got ur summer associate offer from Kirkland like every other kid at your law school

[Anonymous User]

Knowing Kirkland, if he was that important to the operation, he'd still be there.

I think the point a few of us are trying to make, maybe inartfully, is there's a danger as K&E becomes so obsessed w/ profitability of missing longer term, harder to quantify benefits in a way that ironically is ultimately bad for the firm. I don't know how much money an elite appellate practice can ever bring, but there are hard-to-capture but I think real reputational benefits to having someone of Clement's caliber as the head of your appellate practice that might get ignored if all the Firm Committee is doing is crunching the latest quarterly profit figures and saying "eh, who cares, let him go, we have PE deals to do."

I'm the "too cynical" poster from above. I actually agree with this. I don't think this particular firing hurts KE's reputational reputation. But certainly creating outsourced service centers throughout the midwest full of ppl who technically have a pulse and some of whom may even have brains to churn deal docs may have long term adverse effects.

Definitely a massive reputation hit among ambitious future litigator-types. Everyone's talking about this. But in any event, just a weak, sad, pathetic move.

Meh. Think this is much more about the partners today being quite socially liberal, and also the very strong disadvantages of a socially conservative reputation when it comes to associate recruiting. Litigation is of declining value to big firms, and everyone needs to bring in enough competent bodies to do the mounds of corporate work that drive profitability today. Literally no advantage to having a visibly socially conservative practice group in your firm today.

If the play is to get hordes of medianish fungible law students from the T14s to staff your corporate machine, this logic makes sense. Two things can be same at the same time. If you're an ambitious future litigator with excellent grades, no way you're going to a Kirkland now.

What is the alternative exactly? What v15 firm would want to hire Paul Clement these days? Most litigators are just in it for the $$$, and don't really care about this stuff. If you are liberal, any top firm is fine. If you are conservative and want to work on ideologically conservative cases, your options are JD (and who knows for how long) or a specialized boutique. The number of litigators who actually care about this stuff from a career perspective is tiny.

[DoveBodyWash]

Knowing Kirkland, if he was that important to the operation, he'd still be there.

I think the point a few of us are trying to make, maybe inartfully, is there's a danger as K&E becomes so obsessed w/ profitability of missing longer term, harder to quantify benefits in a way that ironically is ultimately bad for the firm. I don't know how much money an elite appellate practice can ever bring, but there are hard-to-capture but I think real reputational benefits to having someone of Clement's caliber as the head of your appellate practice that might get ignored if all the Firm Committee is doing is crunching the latest quarterly profit figures and saying "eh, who cares, let him go, we have PE deals to do."

I'm the "too cynical" poster from above. I actually agree with this. I don't think this particular firing hurts KE's reputational reputation. But certainly creating outsourced service centers throughout the midwest full of ppl who technically have a pulse and some of whom may even have brains to churn deal docs may have long term adverse effects.

Definitely a massive reputation hit among ambitious future litigator-types. Everyone's talking about this. But in any event, just a weak, sad, pathetic move.

Meh. Think this is much more about the partners today being quite socially liberal, and also the very strong disadvantages of a socially conservative reputation when it comes to associate recruiting. Litigation is of declining value to big firms, and everyone needs to bring in enough competent bodies to do the mounds of corporate work that drive profitability today. Literally no advantage to having a visibly socially conservative practice group in your firm today.

If the play is to get hordes of medianish fungible law students from the T14s to staff your corporate machine, this logic makes sense. Two things can be same at the same time. If you're an ambitious future litigator with excellent grades, no way you're going to a Kirkland now.

Didn't realize the near-zero prospect of working with Paul Clement was why ambitious future litigators applied to K&E lol

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is basically becoming the Walmart of law firms. No one can deny that it makes tons of money, but no one respects them. Just a bunch of pathetic money grubbers.

no way you’re not still in law school

ok congrats on working for such a preffftigious firm. must be proud. no way u didn't put up a linkedin post when you got ur summer associate offer from Kirkland like every other kid at your law school

I don’t work at KE

edit again: i’m flaming you because the level of vitriol you have for a business is concerning. i don’t care about the firm or its reputation, nor did i say it was prestigious lol

MOD NOTE: User JiveTurkey outed for anon abuse.

[Anonymous User]

If they hadn’t “fired” Paul Clement then some people (probably the same people who look for any excuse to crap on Kirkland tbh) would be arguing that Kirkland has no morals and is willing to take blood money from gun companies. Anything for profit as long as the check clears. Really a lose-lose situation for the firm.

[Anonymous User]

Knowing Kirkland, if he was that important to the operation, he'd still be there.

I think the point a few of us are trying to make, maybe inartfully, is there's a danger as K&E becomes so obsessed w/ profitability of missing longer term, harder to quantify benefits in a way that ironically is ultimately bad for the firm. I don't know how much money an elite appellate practice can ever bring, but there are hard-to-capture but I think real reputational benefits to having someone of Clement's caliber as the head of your appellate practice that might get ignored if all the Firm Committee is doing is crunching the latest quarterly profit figures and saying "eh, who cares, let him go, we have PE deals to do."

I'm the "too cynical" poster from above. I actually agree with this. I don't think this particular firing hurts KE's reputational reputation. But certainly creating outsourced service centers throughout the midwest full of ppl who technically have a pulse and some of whom may even have brains to churn deal docs may have long term adverse effects.

Definitely a massive reputation hit among ambitious future litigator-types. Everyone's talking about this. But in any event, just a weak, sad, pathetic move.

Meh. Think this is much more about the partners today being quite socially liberal, and also the very strong disadvantages of a socially conservative reputation when it comes to associate recruiting. Litigation is of declining value to big firms, and everyone needs to bring in enough competent bodies to do the mounds of corporate work that drive profitability today. Literally no advantage to having a visibly socially conservative practice group in your firm today.

If the play is to get hordes of medianish fungible law students from the T14s to staff your corporate machine, this logic makes sense. Two things can be same at the same time. If you're an ambitious future litigator with excellent grades, no way you're going to a Kirkland now.

Didn't realize the near-zero prospect of working with Paul Clement was why ambitious future litigators applied to K&E lol

Jeez if you're gonna straw-man, at least do it well. Logic befitting of someone who goes to Kirkland. No one goes to Kirkland to work for Clement specifically, this is more about Kirkland's big picture priorities and how much it values having a sterling litigation practice.

Mod note: User KirklandSignature outed for anon abuse.

[Anonymous User]

The problem with criticizing Kirkland is that there are so many Kirkland associates out there. They'll come out like locusts to defend their firm. Probably the best argument for their indiscriminate recruitment strategy.

MOD NOTE: User Kirkland Signature outed for anon abuse.

[Anonymous User]

Knowing Kirkland, if he was that important to the operation, he'd still be there.

I think the point a few of us are trying to make, maybe inartfully, is there's a danger as K&E becomes so obsessed w/ profitability of missing longer term, harder to quantify benefits in a way that ironically is ultimately bad for the firm. I don't know how much money an elite appellate practice can ever bring, but there are hard-to-capture but I think real reputational benefits to having someone of Clement's caliber as the head of your appellate practice that might get ignored if all the Firm Committee is doing is crunching the latest quarterly profit figures and saying "eh, who cares, let him go, we have PE deals to do."

I'm the "too cynical" poster from above. I actually agree with this. I don't think this particular firing hurts KE's reputational reputation. But certainly creating outsourced service centers throughout the midwest full of ppl who technically have a pulse and some of whom may even have brains to churn deal docs may have long term adverse effects.

Definitely a massive reputation hit among ambitious future litigator-types. Everyone's talking about this. But in any event, just a weak, sad, pathetic move.

Meh. Think this is much more about the partners today being quite socially liberal, and also the very strong disadvantages of a socially conservative reputation when it comes to associate recruiting. Litigation is of declining value to big firms, and everyone needs to bring in enough competent bodies to do the mounds of corporate work that drive profitability today. Literally no advantage to having a visibly socially conservative practice group in your firm today.

If the play is to get hordes of medianish fungible law students from the T14s to staff your corporate machine, this logic makes sense. Two things can be same at the same time. If you're an ambitious future litigator with excellent grades, no way you're going to a Kirkland now.

What is the alternative exactly? What v15 firm would want to hire Paul Clement these days? Most litigators are just in it for the $$$, and don't really care about this stuff. If you are liberal, any top firm is fine. If you are conservative and want to work on ideologically conservative cases, your options are JD (and who knows for how long) or a specialized boutique. The number of litigators who actually care about this stuff from a career perspective is tiny.

The point isn't that litigators are drawn to conservative causes, it's that they (for better or worse) care about things like preffftige, how much a firm values its litigation practice, brass rings, etc. Throwing away the biggest name in appellate litigation for some random corporate client sends powerful signals to this crowd. Maybe the firm doesn't care about catering to this crowd. That's completely fair. But at the same time, there's no need to humor Kirkland randos who act like they're making a prestige move by working for the Walmart of law firms.

MOD Note: User Kirkland Signature outed for anon abuse.

[Anonymous User]

I think the point a few of us are trying to make, maybe inartfully, is there's a danger as K&E becomes so obsessed w/ profitability of missing longer term, harder to quantify benefits in a way that ironically is ultimately bad for the firm. I don't know how much money an elite appellate practice can ever bring, but there are hard-to-capture but I think real reputational benefits to having someone of Clement's caliber as the head of your appellate practice that might get ignored if all the Firm Committee is doing is crunching the latest quarterly profit figures and saying "eh, who cares, let him go, we have PE deals to do."

I'm the "too cynical" poster from above. I actually agree with this. I don't think this particular firing hurts KE's reputational reputation. But certainly creating outsourced service centers throughout the midwest full of ppl who technically have a pulse and some of whom may even have brains to churn deal docs may have long term adverse effects.

Definitely a massive reputation hit among ambitious future litigator-types. Everyone's talking about this. But in any event, just a weak, sad, pathetic move.

Meh. Think this is much more about the partners today being quite socially liberal, and also the very strong disadvantages of a socially conservative reputation when it comes to associate recruiting. Litigation is of declining value to big firms, and everyone needs to bring in enough competent bodies to do the mounds of corporate work that drive profitability today. Literally no advantage to having a visibly socially conservative practice group in your firm today.

If the play is to get hordes of medianish fungible law students from the T14s to staff your corporate machine, this logic makes sense. Two things can be same at the same time. If you're an ambitious future litigator with excellent grades, no way you're going to a Kirkland now.

What is the alternative exactly? What v15 firm would want to hire Paul Clement these days? Most litigators are just in it for the $$$, and don't really care about this stuff. If you are liberal, any top firm is fine. If you are conservative and want to work on ideologically conservative cases, your options are JD (and who knows for how long) or a specialized boutique. The number of litigators who actually care about this stuff from a career perspective is tiny.

The point isn't that litigators are drawn to conservative causes, it's that they (for better or worse) care about things like preffftige, how much a firm values its litigation practice, brass rings, etc. Throwing away the biggest name in appellate litigation for some random corporate client sends powerful signals to this crowd. Maybe the firm doesn't care about catering to this crowd. That's completely fair. But at the same time, there's no need to humor Kirkland randos who act like they're making a prestige move by working for the Walmart of law firms.

But it’s not just catering to corporate clients? It’s also catering to the attorneys and employees at Kirkland, the majority of whom are probably uncomfortable with the the firm taking these very conservative cases that imo make America a worse place to live. I would be pissed if my firm was the one arguing SCOTUS to overturn Roe or Obergefell. Kirkland has a lot of flaws and issues but I don’t fault the firm for making this decision—they’d be vilified either way.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is basically becoming the Walmart of law firms. No one can deny that it makes tons of money, but no one respects them. Just a bunch of pathetic money grubbers.

no way you’re not still in law school

ok congrats on working for such a preffftigious firm. must be proud. no way u didn't put up a linkedin post when you got ur summer associate offer from Kirkland like every other kid at your law school

I don’t work at KE

edit again: i’m flaming you because the level of vitriol you have for a business is concerning. i don’t care about the firm or its reputation, nor did i say it was prestigious lol

four edits lol. weird.

Mod Note: User oranger outed for anon abuse.

[Anonymous User]

Knowing Kirkland, if he was that important to the operation, he'd still be there.

I think the point a few of us are trying to make, maybe inartfully, is there's a danger as K&E becomes so obsessed w/ profitability of missing longer term, harder to quantify benefits in a way that ironically is ultimately bad for the firm. I don't know how much money an elite appellate practice can ever bring, but there are hard-to-capture but I think real reputational benefits to having someone of Clement's caliber as the head of your appellate practice that might get ignored if all the Firm Committee is doing is crunching the latest quarterly profit figures and saying "eh, who cares, let him go, we have PE deals to do."

I'm the "too cynical" poster from above. I actually agree with this. I don't think this particular firing hurts KE's reputational reputation. But certainly creating outsourced service centers throughout the midwest full of ppl who technically have a pulse and some of whom may even have brains to churn deal docs may have long term adverse effects.

Definitely a massive reputation hit among ambitious future litigator-types. Everyone's talking about this. But in any event, just a weak, sad, pathetic move.

Meh. Think this is much more about the partners today being quite socially liberal, and also the very strong disadvantages of a socially conservative reputation when it comes to associate recruiting. Litigation is of declining value to big firms, and everyone needs to bring in enough competent bodies to do the mounds of corporate work that drive profitability today. Literally no advantage to having a visibly socially conservative practice group in your firm today.

If the play is to get hordes of medianish fungible law students from the T14s to staff your corporate machine, this logic makes sense. Two things can be same at the same time. If you're an ambitious future litigator with excellent grades, no way you're going to a Kirkland now.

What is the alternative exactly? What v15 firm would want to hire Paul Clement these days? Most litigators are just in it for the $$$, and don't really care about this stuff. If you are liberal, any top firm is fine. If you are conservative and want to work on ideologically conservative cases, your options are JD (and who knows for how long) or a specialized boutique. The number of litigators who actually care about this stuff from a career perspective is tiny.

Uhhh, pretty sure GDC DC or Dallas would kill for Clement. P,W has Kannon Shanmugam, who's only somewhat less conservative than Clement and takes conservative cases. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

Clement could on-his-own create any firm's DC appellate practice and have it be one of the best in the country. This is valuable--look at Jenner, where the DC practice boosts the rest of the firm's profile massively. The value of a high-flying DC appellate practice is unmistakeable.

That said, if I were Clement I'd start my own thing and have my name on the door. Screw working under someone else's name, Clement & Murphy LLP is a far better approach. They'll be picking up top conservative appellate lawyers in a heartbeat and won't have to kowtow to some firm committee.

Mod Note: User musiccityboer outed for anon abuse.

[nealric]

MOD REMINDER: The Anon feature is for posting personally sensitive information about employment. Failure to adhere will result in bans from this forum.

[temp69420]

This is the guy who thought that the defense of marriage act was an important cause to stand up for.