Kirkland Megathread Forum

[Anonymous User]

To whoever took issue with characterizing Kirkland as the Walmart of law firms, it's not necessarily an insult. Walmart is the largest company in the world by revenue, and Kirkland is the most profitable firm in the country. Most of this is driven by Kirkland's juggernaut transactions machine, which has been staggeringly successful in terms of pure dollar signs.

People are just pointing out that a place like that isn't the best landing spot for the ambitious litigator. Outback Steakhouse is orders of magnitude more profitable than a typical Zagat-rated fancy-pants restaurant. But litigators (highly credentialed ones, at least) prefer to work in the latter if they can.

Also, it's not accurate that DLA Piper is the Walmart of law firms. DLA Piper is more like Dollar General.

You’re totally right, but I think the part some people take issue with us the additional implication that the “products” are cheap and lower quality. Which is obviously hilariously untrue given how astronomical Kirkland’s rates are. I think a more appropriate comparison would be some sort of expensive luxury good that is indeed expensive and high quality, but is so common and omnipresent that it’s not “cool” like some more niche speciality alternatives.

Like.... idk Rolex maybe? Isn’t that a bit passé among watch enthusiasts? Or like... BMWs? Gucci? Morton’s Steakhouse? Vacationing somewhere obvious like Paris? Those might all be terrible examples, maybe someone with better knowledge of those scenes can extend the metaphor better. My point is, something that is expensive and good, but too Basic Bitch among the wealthy and sophisticated crowd too stand out. Whereas a sexy lit boutique would be Patek Phillipe, the Maldives, Peter Luger, etc.

[Anonymous User]

To whoever took issue with characterizing Kirkland as the Walmart of law firms, it's not necessarily an insult. Walmart is the largest company in the world by revenue, and Kirkland is the most profitable firm in the country. Most of this is driven by Kirkland's juggernaut transactions machine, which has been staggeringly successful in terms of pure dollar signs.

People are just pointing out that a place like that isn't the best landing spot for the ambitious litigator. Outback Steakhouse is orders of magnitude more profitable than a typical Zagat-rated fancy-pants restaurant. But litigators (highly credentialed ones, at least) prefer to work in the latter if they can.

Also, it's not accurate that DLA Piper is the Walmart of law firms. DLA Piper is more like Dollar General.

You’re totally right, but I think the part some people take issue with us the additional implication that the “products” are cheap and lower quality. Which is obviously hilariously untrue given how astronomical Kirkland’s rates are. I think a more appropriate comparison would be some sort of expensive luxury good that is indeed expensive and high quality, but is so common and omnipresent that it’s not “cool” like some more niche speciality alternatives.

Like.... idk Rolex maybe? Isn’t that a bit passé among watch enthusiasts? Or like... BMWs? Gucci? Morton’s Steakhouse? Vacationing somewhere obvious like Paris? Those might all be terrible examples, maybe someone with better knowledge of those scenes can extend the metaphor better. My point is, something that is expensive and good, but too Basic Bitch among the wealthy and sophisticated crowd too stand out. Whereas a sexy lit boutique would be Patek Phillipe, the Maldives, Peter Luger, etc.

The US healthcare system is a good analogy: expensive and poor quality. It is expensive and if not scrutinized it is fine, but if scrutinized it doesn't hold up.

This wasn't the case even 5 years ago. But lately Kirkland has taken an actuarial approach to corporate work. Throwing on a DLA piper 4th year lateral and 1st year to run a deal and hope that all goes well.

[Anonymous User]

To whoever took issue with characterizing Kirkland as the Walmart of law firms, it's not necessarily an insult. Walmart is the largest company in the world by revenue, and Kirkland is the most profitable firm in the country. Most of this is driven by Kirkland's juggernaut transactions machine, which has been staggeringly successful in terms of pure dollar signs.

People are just pointing out that a place like that isn't the best landing spot for the ambitious litigator. Outback Steakhouse is orders of magnitude more profitable than a typical Zagat-rated fancy-pants restaurant. But litigators (highly credentialed ones, at least) prefer to work in the latter if they can.

Also, it's not accurate that DLA Piper is the Walmart of law firms. DLA Piper is more like Dollar General.

You’re totally right, but I think the part some people take issue with us the additional implication that the “products” are cheap and lower quality. Which is obviously hilariously untrue given how astronomical Kirkland’s rates are. I think a more appropriate comparison would be some sort of expensive luxury good that is indeed expensive and high quality, but is so common and omnipresent that it’s not “cool” like some more niche speciality alternatives.

Like.... idk Rolex maybe? Isn’t that a bit passé among watch enthusiasts? Or like... BMWs? Gucci? Morton’s Steakhouse? Vacationing somewhere obvious like Paris? Those might all be terrible examples, maybe someone with better knowledge of those scenes can extend the metaphor better. My point is, something that is expensive and good, but too Basic Bitch among the wealthy and sophisticated crowd too stand out. Whereas a sexy lit boutique would be Patek Phillipe, the Maldives, Peter Luger, etc.

The US healthcare system is a good analogy: expensive and poor quality. It is expensive and if not scrutinized it is fine, but if scrutinized it doesn't hold up.

This wasn't the case even 5 years ago. But lately Kirkland has taken an actuarial approach to corporate work. Throwing on a DLA piper 4th year lateral and 1st year to run a deal and hope that all goes well.

Nice (unsubstantiated) shade. We get it. Everyone at TLS hates Kirkland as we become the richest and most profitable firm in the world. We're the Skadden of the 2020s. Also, even if what you were saying were true (and it isn't), you're mixing apples & oranges. The discussion was about litigation which, again, has maintained its standards through COVID and is not the source of the lately reputation that "Kirkland hires shitty bottom T14 laterals to run deals, bro."

[Anonymous User]

To whoever took issue with characterizing Kirkland as the Walmart of law firms, it's not necessarily an insult. Walmart is the largest company in the world by revenue, and Kirkland is the most profitable firm in the country. Most of this is driven by Kirkland's juggernaut transactions machine, which has been staggeringly successful in terms of pure dollar signs.

People are just pointing out that a place like that isn't the best landing spot for the ambitious litigator. Outback Steakhouse is orders of magnitude more profitable than a typical Zagat-rated fancy-pants restaurant. But litigators (highly credentialed ones, at least) prefer to work in the latter if they can.

Also, it's not accurate that DLA Piper is the Walmart of law firms. DLA Piper is more like Dollar General.

You’re totally right, but I think the part some people take issue with us the additional implication that the “products” are cheap and lower quality. Which is obviously hilariously untrue given how astronomical Kirkland’s rates are. I think a more appropriate comparison would be some sort of expensive luxury good that is indeed expensive and high quality, but is so common and omnipresent that it’s not “cool” like some more niche speciality alternatives.

Like.... idk Rolex maybe? Isn’t that a bit passé among watch enthusiasts? Or like... BMWs? Gucci? Morton’s Steakhouse? Vacationing somewhere obvious like Paris? Those might all be terrible examples, maybe someone with better knowledge of those scenes can extend the metaphor better. My point is, something that is expensive and good, but too Basic Bitch among the wealthy and sophisticated crowd too stand out. Whereas a sexy lit boutique would be Patek Phillipe, the Maldives, Peter Luger, etc.

The US healthcare system is a good analogy: expensive and poor quality. It is expensive and if not scrutinized it is fine, but if scrutinized it doesn't hold up.

This wasn't the case even 5 years ago. But lately Kirkland has taken an actuarial approach to corporate work. Throwing on a DLA piper 4th year lateral and 1st year to run a deal and hope that all goes well.

You can make a lot of criticism of the dollar value of the US healthcare system, but if you're in a major metro it's literally the highest quality in the world. Frankly if anything its too high quality because the AMA is a complete cartel and prevents cheaper market entrants (along with things like certificates of need for new hospitals, etc)

[Anonymous User]

We're the Skadden of the 2020s.

Is that supposed to be a flex? Skadden outside of M&A isn't really a player and isn't considered a prestigious result even by median students at T6s, while K&E (at least NY/Chi/DC/CA) is for a few practice areas.

Also, even if what you were saying were true (and it isn't), you're mixing apples & oranges. The discussion was about litigation which, again, has maintained its standards through COVID and is not the source of the lately reputation that "Kirkland hires shitty bottom T14 laterals to run deals, bro."

Out of curiosity, is K&E pulling these "shitty bottom T14 laterals" into gencorp, PE, RX, or another practice? I haven't been paying enough attention to what practice groups are driving the insane YOY growth.

[Anonymous User]

We're the Skadden of the 2020s.

Is that supposed to be a flex? Skadden outside of M&A isn't really a player and isn't considered a prestigious result even by median students at T6s, while K&E (at least NY/Chi/DC/CA) is for a few practice areas.

Also, even if what you were saying were true (and it isn't), you're mixing apples & oranges. The discussion was about litigation which, again, has maintained its standards through COVID and is not the source of the lately reputation that "Kirkland hires shitty bottom T14 laterals to run deals, bro."

Out of curiosity, is K&E pulling these "shitty bottom T14 laterals" into gencorp, PE, RX, or another practice? I haven't been paying enough attention to what practice groups are driving the insane YOY growth.

Skadden in the 90s and the 00s until ITE grew by leaps and bounds, became very rich and huge relative to its peers, and upset a lot of (then) conventions in biglaw especially among white shoe firms. As this was happening, it also elicited the same sort of navel-gazing talk you’re seeing ITT re how “well, that’s fine, they’re rich and successful and upending the industry but look at their (((standards))).”

[Anonymous User]

We're the Skadden of the 2020s.

Is that supposed to be a flex? Skadden outside of M&A isn't really a player and isn't considered a prestigious result even by median students at T6s, while K&E (at least NY/Chi/DC/CA) is for a few practice areas.

Also, even if what you were saying were true (and it isn't), you're mixing apples & oranges. The discussion was about litigation which, again, has maintained its standards through COVID and is not the source of the lately reputation that "Kirkland hires shitty bottom T14 laterals to run deals, bro."

Out of curiosity, is K&E pulling these "shitty bottom T14 laterals" into gencorp, PE, RX, or another practice? I haven't been paying enough attention to what practice groups are driving the insane YOY growth.

Skadden in the 90s and the 00s until ITE grew by leaps and bounds, became very rich and huge relative to its peers, and upset a lot of (then) conventions in biglaw especially among white shoe firms. As this was happening, it also elicited the same sort of navel-gazing talk you’re seeing ITT re how “well, that’s fine, they’re rich and successful and upending the industry but look at their (((standards))).”

Ah, that makes sense. My dad always talked about Skadden in near-reverential terms compared to other firms, which never made sense to me in law school.

[Anonymous User]

Can't believe I'm dignifying this idiotic post with a response, but this reads like a 2L fantasy novel by someone super excited he accepted a summer offer at Paul Weiss over Kirkland. Kirkland was just named AmLaw's Litigation Department of the Year and it's been in BTI's Fearsome Foursome for a decade. The firm routinely handles some of the most prestigious and largest litigation matters in the country. The department (all 650 attorneys) is a major source of the firm's reputation, capability, and profitability, especially during less stable periods like the first couple quarters of COVID and then again in 2022. It's true that the trend of the firm has been more toward transactional in the past ten years in relative terms (like most firms in the V25), but the litigation and the transactional work go hand in hand (the cross-platform capability is a huge selling point for clients) and litigation is in the firm's DNA and always will be; there isn't a litigator here who if you asked them would claim they are an "afterthought" (what garbage). Finally, what happened with Clement has been brewing for years as part of some Game of Thrones power politics crap that has nothing to do with profitability or litigation vs. transactional or anything else other than big egos jockeying for influence.

Kirkland lit is fine. there are obviously better places to litigate, and there are obviously worse places to litigate. no need to get defensive. bolded is just...blatantly false and/or cringeworthy.

No one is being defensive just clearing up bullshit from someone with an obvious axe to grind (but who lacks actual knowledge)—“the Walmart of law.” Also nothing you’ve bolded is false. Not going to get into a pedants debate about whether you can find an attorney here or there who would disagree about the “afterthought” comment. Not sure why you’d argue the firm’s reputation isn’t based on lit just as much as corp; ten years ago, before any of this transactional wave (back when Kirkland’s biggest claim to fame in transactional spaces was just its mid market dominance), the firm was already V10. And the trans and lit groups are constantly cross selling.

I'm a Kirkland associate and agree that the bolded was cringe. BTI's Fearsome Four? Cross-platform capability? Almost shocked this cheerleader didn't include our Wins of the Week or Litigator of the Month awards.

Definitely true that at least some litigators feel that their (our) department is an afterthought to corporate. It's just how power and money work in 2022, would be naive to believe otherwise. And nothing this cheerleader is criticizing "reads like a 2L fantasy novel", that's a tired insult on these boards. We're all working attorneys who practice in the real world. Clement's departure has ramifications in the high-level lit and appellate markets. No point being defensive (or naive) about it.

Being a part of BTI's Fearsome Foursome isn't some easy marketing exercise it carries a significant amount of weight with clients. Claiming that Kirkland is becoming the "Walmart of Law Firms" isn't the "real world" it's exactly the cruft you'd find from a know-nothing 2L; Kirkland isn't DLA Piper San Diego and it was a stupid point. And the point about the firm being loaded up with crappy law students and lateral hires is, ironically, a criticism of the corporate practice if anything not litigation: all the talk in the past twenty-four months about Kirkland driving its reputation down because of bad recruits is being driven by corporate while litigation has maintained the same standards that it had pre-COVID. I'll qualify this by admitting that my perspective is Chicago-centric where Kirkland is the obvious top litigation firm here other than if you want boutique in which case you go Bartlit; maybe colleagues in NY, where the corp. work has grown so immensely and the lit. reputation wasn't as strong to begin with feel differently. But the point stands that the original post was full of nonsense.

Lol at using a list that includes Skadden as a talent pull in the elite lit world. And Jones Day, though at least JD is genuinely elite in some markets.

I feel like there’s a disconnect going on in the comments and people are talking past each other while both sides are making accurate statements.

Places like Kirkland and Skadden (and Latham and Jones Day etc.) are absolutely highly regarded on a national level for huge corporate litigation matters, mass product defense, bet the company contract disputes, etc. Maybe “fearsome foursome” is a bad name but I don’t think, in context, it’s crazy to put e.g., Skadden on that sort of list.

At the same time, Kirkland isn’t Bancroft or Williams & Connolly or Gibson DC or (pick your ultra elite CoA focused high-end lit shop). There are pockets of any V10 that you could argue have that sort of credentialing but as a firm that’s not what Kirkland is about and that’s okay (probably more than okay to the transactional folks since why drag the profit margin down with “appellate” work lol)

Both positions are true and valid and people ITT are talking across each other a bit.

I don't know that Kirkland belongs in the same category as Skadden or Latham for lit, especially in DC. I'll just say that I was leaving a top DC shop as a lateral (think Covington/Gibson/Wilmer) and have two feeder clerkships and was very interested in Kirkland DC and interviewed with them. I think the partners and work they have are near the top of the DC market, with or without Clement. I got an offer and although ended up somewhere else that was a near perfect fit for me, I would've been happy at Kirkland.

Frankly, for folks more interested in regulatory adjacent stuff and less conservative, seeing Clement gone as part of a power struggle may make the firm and office more attractive. I think a bit of this navel gazing is silly. Kirkland is still a very strong DC shop and lit shop generally across a range of practices. It never has been, aside from Clement's little cadre for pure appeals, quite as "elite" as a few other firms for lit, but it's always handled (and handled well) a range of top lit and DC work. Anyone saying otherwise is full of shit. Did I care that the firm has some Cardozo grad in NY doing M&A work? No, except that the guy subsidized an excellent firm infrastructure and top-tier profitability that has kept the rainmakers in my practice groups at the firm. I'm enough of an adult, and confident enough in my own "prestige", not to measure my dick by the selectiveness of other groups and practices at the firm that I'll never work with.

[clerky123]

Has anyone transferred offices as a first year?

I'm a rising 3L with an offer to return after a clerkship. Mid-way through my clerkship my SO will find out where they are matched for residency. Is there any point in raising the question with partners now about whether I would be able to transfer offices based on where my partner is matched if necessary? Or should I just sign my offer and go from there once I have more information later (my judge said it would be okay to sign)?

I'm worried about signing my offer and then mid-way through the clerkship realizing that I really need to be in a different location or firm.

Any advice is appreciated!!

[Sackboy]

Has anyone transferred offices as a first year?

I'm a rising 3L with an offer to return after a clerkship. Mid-way through my clerkship my SO will find out where they are matched for residency. Is there any point in raising the question with partners now about whether I would be able to transfer offices based on where my partner is matched if necessary? Or should I just sign my offer and go from there once I have more information later (my judge said it would be okay to sign)?

I'm worried about signing my offer and then mid-way through the clerkship realizing that I really need to be in a different location or firm.

Any advice is appreciated!!

Just sign. When your SO is placed mid-way through your clerkship, reach out to KE and let them know you need to start in a different office because of the placement. If they can't accommodate, just go to a different firm in that market. These offers aren't binding, and KE wouldn't hesitate to fire you in a second, so don't hesitate to back out and find firm that is actually where your SO will be if things come to that. I had a couple classmates a few years back who transferred offices at KE in their first year. Didn't seem like a big deal. The firm is growing so quickly they seem to need bodies everywhere anyway.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone transferred offices as a first year?

I'm a rising 3L with an offer to return after a clerkship. Mid-way through my clerkship my SO will find out where they are matched for residency. Is there any point in raising the question with partners now about whether I would be able to transfer offices based on where my partner is matched if necessary? Or should I just sign my offer and go from there once I have more information later (my judge said it would be okay to sign)?

I'm worried about signing my offer and then mid-way through the clerkship realizing that I really need to be in a different location or firm.

Any advice is appreciated!!

You shouldn't sign your offer anyways. Tell the firm that your court doesn't want to create possible conflicts issues. This is common practice at law firms.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone transferred offices as a first year?

I'm a rising 3L with an offer to return after a clerkship. Mid-way through my clerkship my SO will find out where they are matched for residency. Is there any point in raising the question with partners now about whether I would be able to transfer offices based on where my partner is matched if necessary? Or should I just sign my offer and go from there once I have more information later (my judge said it would be okay to sign)?

I'm worried about signing my offer and then mid-way through the clerkship realizing that I really need to be in a different location or firm.

Any advice is appreciated!!

Just sign. When your SO is placed mid-way through your clerkship, reach out to KE and let them know you need to start in a different office because of the placement. If they can't accommodate, just go to a different firm in that market. These offers aren't binding, and KE wouldn't hesitate to fire you in a second, so don't hesitate to back out and find firm that is actually where your SO will be if things come to that. I had a couple classmates a few years back who transferred offices at KE in their first year. Didn't seem like a big deal. The firm is growing so quickly they seem to need bodies everywhere anyway.

100% sign the offer (so long as your judge is okay with this) to demonstrate your commitment to coming back, then if your SO gets placed in a residency in a different city, explain the situation and they should have no problem transferring. When I was summering, my SO got a job in a different market and my law firm transferred my offer to the other office with no problem

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone transferred offices as a first year?

I'm a rising 3L with an offer to return after a clerkship. Mid-way through my clerkship my SO will find out where they are matched for residency. Is there any point in raising the question with partners now about whether I would be able to transfer offices based on where my partner is matched if necessary? Or should I just sign my offer and go from there once I have more information later (my judge said it would be okay to sign)?

I'm worried about signing my offer and then mid-way through the clerkship realizing that I really need to be in a different location or firm.

Any advice is appreciated!!

You shouldn't sign your offer anyways. Tell the firm that your court doesn't want to create possible conflicts issues. This is common practice at law firms.

I clerked and my judge was fine with signing/accepting. The practice in chambers was that I wouldn't be involved in any case with Kirkland representing a party. My co-clerks had all signed offers before clerking and were subject to the same policy. I think it only manifested one time during our year.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone transferred offices as a first year?

I'm a rising 3L with an offer to return after a clerkship. Mid-way through my clerkship my SO will find out where they are matched for residency. Is there any point in raising the question with partners now about whether I would be able to transfer offices based on where my partner is matched if necessary? Or should I just sign my offer and go from there once I have more information later (my judge said it would be okay to sign)?

I'm worried about signing my offer and then mid-way through the clerkship realizing that I really need to be in a different location or firm.

Any advice is appreciated!!

You shouldn't sign your offer anyways. Tell the firm that your court doesn't want to create possible conflicts issues. This is common practice at law firms.

I clerked and my judge was fine with signing/accepting. The practice in chambers was that I wouldn't be involved in any case with Kirkland representing a party. My co-clerks had all signed offers before clerking and were subject to the same policy. I think it only manifested one time during our year.

In my clerkship, even if people didn't have signed offers, if there was a meaningful chance they were going to Firm X, they recused from Firm X matters. Of course, if they had something signed, it made it easier/more straightforward. I'm surprised that's not a universal approach.

[clerky123]

Has anyone transferred offices as a first year?

I'm a rising 3L with an offer to return after a clerkship. Mid-way through my clerkship my SO will find out where they are matched for residency. Is there any point in raising the question with partners now about whether I would be able to transfer offices based on where my partner is matched if necessary? Or should I just sign my offer and go from there once I have more information later (my judge said it would be okay to sign)?

I'm worried about signing my offer and then mid-way through the clerkship realizing that I really need to be in a different location or firm.

Any advice is appreciated!!

Just sign. When your SO is placed mid-way through your clerkship, reach out to KE and let them know you need to start in a different office because of the placement. If they can't accommodate, just go to a different firm in that market. These offers aren't binding, and KE wouldn't hesitate to fire you in a second, so don't hesitate to back out and find firm that is actually where your SO will be if things come to that. I had a couple classmates a few years back who transferred offices at KE in their first year. Didn't seem like a big deal. The firm is growing so quickly they seem to need bodies everywhere anyway.

100% sign the offer (so long as your judge is okay with this) to demonstrate your commitment to coming back, then if your SO gets placed in a residency in a different city, explain the situation and they should have no problem transferring. When I was summering, my SO got a job in a different market and my law firm transferred my offer to the other office with no problem

Signed this afternoon! Thanks for the responses!!!

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone transferred offices as a first year?

I'm a rising 3L with an offer to return after a clerkship. Mid-way through my clerkship my SO will find out where they are matched for residency. Is there any point in raising the question with partners now about whether I would be able to transfer offices based on where my partner is matched if necessary? Or should I just sign my offer and go from there once I have more information later (my judge said it would be okay to sign)?

I'm worried about signing my offer and then mid-way through the clerkship realizing that I really need to be in a different location or firm.

Any advice is appreciated!!

Just sign. When your SO is placed mid-way through your clerkship, reach out to KE and let them know you need to start in a different office because of the placement. If they can't accommodate, just go to a different firm in that market. These offers aren't binding, and KE wouldn't hesitate to fire you in a second, so don't hesitate to back out and find firm that is actually where your SO will be if things come to that. I had a couple classmates a few years back who transferred offices at KE in their first year. Didn't seem like a big deal. The firm is growing so quickly they seem to need bodies everywhere anyway.

100% sign the offer (so long as your judge is okay with this) to demonstrate your commitment to coming back, then if your SO gets placed in a residency in a different city, explain the situation and they should have no problem transferring. When I was summering, my SO got a job in a different market and my law firm transferred my offer to the other office with no problem

For posterity, this strikes me as bad advice. You can always tell your firm you can't sign your offer letter because of your judge. Firms understand. Signing early doesn't necessarily "demonstrate your commitment to coming back," and even if it did, that doesn't justify the loss of option value and leverage from remaining a free agent.

[Anonymous User]

Just interviewed with Kirkland. Honestly worst interview ever. Partner treated me like an absolute piece of sh**. FWIW I did 10 other CB's and none of them treated me like this. I will say the second interviewer was the exact opposite and of the kindest interviewers I had, at that point though I couldn't recover. wtvr giant waste of my time. Folks get better ppl to interview candidates

[Anonymous User]

Just interviewed with Kirkland. Honestly worst interview ever. Partner treated me like an absolute piece of sh**. FWIW I did 10 other CB's and none of them treated me like this. I will say the second interviewer was the exact opposite and of the kindest interviewers I had, at that point though I couldn't recover. wtvr giant waste of my time. Folks get better ppl to interview candidates

Lol what did the partner say/do? My K&E cb was pretty unremarkable tbh.

[Anonymous User]

Just interviewed with Kirkland. Honestly worst interview ever. Partner treated me like an absolute piece of sh**. FWIW I did 10 other CB's and none of them treated me like this. I will say the second interviewer was the exact opposite and of the kindest interviewers I had, at that point though I couldn't recover. wtvr giant waste of my time. Folks get better ppl to interview candidates

Lol what did the partner say/do? My K&E cb was pretty unremarkable tbh.

And mine were all super friendly. I’m sure LRD would love to hear about this person being an asshole interviewer so they can pull them off the roster.

[Anonymous User]

Just interviewed with Kirkland. Honestly worst interview ever. Partner treated me like an absolute piece of sh**. FWIW I did 10 other CB's and none of them treated me like this. I will say the second interviewer was the exact opposite and of the kindest interviewers I had, at that point though I couldn't recover. wtvr giant waste of my time. Folks get better ppl to interview candidates

If you’re gonna anon post this can you at least provide more information? Like what happened? and what office it was?

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone transferred offices as a first year?

I'm a rising 3L with an offer to return after a clerkship. Mid-way through my clerkship my SO will find out where they are matched for residency. Is there any point in raising the question with partners now about whether I would be able to transfer offices based on where my partner is matched if necessary? Or should I just sign my offer and go from there once I have more information later (my judge said it would be okay to sign)?

I'm worried about signing my offer and then mid-way through the clerkship realizing that I really need to be in a different location or firm.

Any advice is appreciated!!

You shouldn't sign your offer anyways. Tell the firm that your court doesn't want to create possible conflicts issues. This is common practice at law firms.

I clerked and my judge was fine with signing/accepting. The practice in chambers was that I wouldn't be involved in any case with Kirkland representing a party. My co-clerks had all signed offers before clerking and were subject to the same policy. I think it only manifested one time during our year.

In my clerkship, even if people didn't have signed offers, if there was a meaningful chance they were going to Firm X, they recused from Firm X matters. Of course, if they had something signed, it made it easier/more straightforward. I'm surprised that's not a universal approach.

I'm the quoted and to be clear, my judge said if you summered at a firm, accepted an offer to one, or even have an application pending at a firm (if you haven't figured out where you're going yet), you'll be recused. It was easier for us maybe in a COA with a lower caseload and four clerks who could easily adjust the workload if someone couldn't handle a particular case. It just so happened that in my year all of us had accepted offers for post-clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

Incoming first year, just wondering what the work from home policy has been? Are people still mostly working from home?

[Anonymous User]

New first-year here,

What are some of the lesser known perks at KE? I've heard of hotel discounts and maybe special banking relationships / benefits?

Use the concierge

[dehaven]

Bottom line is this - even with the increased expenses and taxes, you will still make more as a 7th year (1st year NSP) than you did as a 6th year, assuming the bonus scale doesn't decrease due to market conditions. This is because your increase in base + bonus bracket is greater than the added taxes and expense.

The person who claimed to have made LESS as as 7th year than a 6th year either (1) received an outsize bonus as a 6th year which did not repeat in year 7 or (2) thinks that tax deferred compensation paid into a retirement account doesn't count as compensation (which is foolish).

I've run the math and I made slightly less my 7th year vs. my 6th year, all-in (and that includes the half share they put in the bonus figure but goes right into the 401k; if you don't count that, it looks even worse obv). I think you're underestimating how badly you get hit on the combo of insurance + out of state taxes + no SS subsidy. Part of the issue is that by the time you're a 6th year, you're past the huge leaps in pay that you experience as a midlevel; it's not that much of an increase in base or bonus between 6th to 7th year all else equal.

I do agree it's extreme to claim that you'll make less as a 2nd year NSP (8th year) than you do as a 6th year associate--that's not right. But the point that's getting lost anyway from this discussion isn't so much the within-Kirkland comparison as the comparison versus other firms: our peers with an equivalent level of seniority are getting more each paycheck because they're not in an "NSP" structure where they're being paid on a K-1 and treated like partners (with all the downside and none of the upside).

EXACTLY THIS: But the point that's getting lost anyway from this discussion isn't so much the within-Kirkland comparison as the comparison versus other firms: our peers with an equivalent level of seniority are getting more each paycheck because they're not in an "NSP" structure where they're being paid on a K-1 and treated like partners (with all the downside and none of the upside).
__

On top of it, Sidley and other firms now also have better multipliers at 2300 hours and above.

I disagree with this take. It’s 20-25k base increase between years (before market movement) and if anything the bonus multipliers were disappointing last year but they don’t compress base the way other firms just put 2014+ in the same group (spoken from a 2013).

Thanks for this -- what happens for the non-NSP 6th years or whatever who lateral late and are therefore not considered for NSP until the following year? Do they get a raise? I would assume so or else there would be attrition. In other words, do they get paid Cravath scale for a 6th/7th year? Thanks.

[Anonymous User]

As a lateral to KE, am I just SOL for firm swag? Does attorney engagement ever drop off gifts?