Kirkland Megathread Forum

[Anonymous User]

Rumors of a NY summer who got fired?

I’m also checking in to see if the ny associates will spill

Anon bc im a Kirkland summer but the guy apparently harassed his PA and also was the same person who purposely went to female SA to celebrate the Dobbs decision.

Did you summer in NY? More context to your use of apparently please. Trying to figure out if there's anyone that can definitively say this occurred. Did you hear it from another summer or are there legitimate clues (E.g., this person's absence from an offer reception or events, comments from recruiting or associates, having witnessed this rumored note instructing security not to let him in)?

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland summers get PAs? For what lol

the PAs are assigned summers so they can train with them before they get assigned 1st years in the fall

sidebar: the gifts given to summers this year were atrocious. almost everything went straight to goodwill

What office were you in? I agree. In Chicago we were given some clunky shoes from a company I had never heard of, a Kirkland cap, a black water bottle, and a tote bag from career link.

[Anonymous User]

Rumors of a NY summer who got fired?

I’m also checking in to see if the ny associates will spill

Anon bc im a Kirkland summer but the guy apparently harassed his PA and also was the same person who purposely went to female SA to celebrate the Dobbs decision.

Did you summer in NY? More context to your use of apparently please. Trying to figure out if there's anyone that can definitively say this occurred. Did you hear it from another summer or are there legitimate clues (E.g., this person's absence from an offer reception or events, comments from recruiting or associates, having witnessed this rumored note instructing security not to let him in)?

I used “apparently” because the reason he was fired I only heard from a fellow summer. I did however personally see his picture in the lobby security and at the bar where the final summer event was held the door people had a photo of him as well with instructions not to let him in.

[Anonymous User]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

Regardless of the merits, K&E obviously knew that this was constructively firing Clement. After all, the exact same thing happened to King & Spalding. Especially since he was guaranteed free rein when Kirkland acquihired Bancroft.

[Anonymous User]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

Regardless of the merits, K&E obviously knew that this was constructively firing Clement. After all, the exact same thing happened to King & Spalding. Especially since he was guaranteed free rein when Kirkland acquihired Bancroft.

Yeah this mealy mouthed "we didn't fire him" is so cowardly, at least have the courage of your convictions.

[Anonymous User]

Rumors of a NY summer who got fired?

I’m also checking in to see if the ny associates will spill

Anon bc im a Kirkland summer but the guy apparently harassed his PA and also was the same person who purposely went to female SA to celebrate the Dobbs decision.

Did you summer in NY? More context to your use of apparently please. Trying to figure out if there's anyone that can definitively say this occurred. Did you hear it from another summer or are there legitimate clues (E.g., this person's absence from an offer reception or events, comments from recruiting or associates, having witnessed this rumored note instructing security not to let him in)?

This stuff gets around. I've seen a picture of the security note, much to my amusement (and I'm at a different firm in another market).

[Anonymous User]

There's a thread titled "Which partners at your firm are notoriously terrible to work for?" and I was hoping someone from K&E RX could chime in (here or in that thread). I've asked in that thread before but haven't gotten a response. Hopefully someone will chime in about NSPs/SPs that are notoriously terrible to work for. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

What the fuck is this PTET bullshit? I just got an email from Kirkland that I owe them $20k and I haven't worked there in over a year.

[Anonymous User]

What the fuck is this PTET bullshit? I just got an email from Kirkland that I owe them $20k and I haven't worked there in over a year.

Wait - what is this? What is PTET? Is this like a signing bonus claw-back or something?

[Anonymous User]

What the fuck is this PTET bullshit? I just got an email from Kirkland that I owe them $20k and I haven't worked there in over a year.

Got to get your accountant involved, show them your K1.

[Anonymous User]

What the fuck is this PTET bullshit? I just got an email from Kirkland that I owe them $20k and I haven't worked there in over a year.

Got to get your accountant involved, show them your K1.

I already filed my taxes for this year. This is so fucking annoying. I'm going to send KE a bill for my accountant.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.tax.ny.gov/bus/ptet/

[Anonymous User]

There's a thread titled "Which partners at your firm are notoriously terrible to work for?" and I was hoping someone from K&E RX could chime in (here or in that thread). I've asked in that thread before but haven't gotten a response. Hopefully someone will chime in about NSPs/SPs that are notoriously terrible to work for. Thanks!

Change of tone but if you can get on the good side of Aparna Yenamandra and Steve Serejeddinni (I didn’t spell it right) you will work hard but have excellent bosses. They are excellent. High expectations of their associates but you’ll get rewarded with genuinely good work. The associates under them are also favored golden children of the group (it’ll be clear who they are fast, I won’t name them). They all deserve it - they are excellent people who are great to work for and learn from.

[Anonymous User]

There's a thread titled "Which partners at your firm are notoriously terrible to work for?" and I was hoping someone from K&E RX could chime in (here or in that thread). I've asked in that thread before but haven't gotten a response. Hopefully someone will chime in about NSPs/SPs that are notoriously terrible to work for. Thanks!

Change of tone but if you can get on the good side of Aparna Yenamandra and Steve Serejeddinni (I didn’t spell it right) you will work hard but have excellent bosses. They are excellent. High expectations of their associates but you’ll get rewarded with genuinely good work. The associates under them are also favored golden children of the group (it’ll be clear who they are fast, I won’t name them). They all deserve it - they are excellent people who are great to work for and learn from.

The RX team seems like it's full of just genuinely fantastic people. Any Chicago partners that are wonderful to work for? I'm a summer and they all were super nice. Husnick seemed like he would be tough to work for! No indication that he would be unpleasant though. I recognize that I have no real insight. Just commenting on the vibes I got as a know nothing summer.

[Anonymous User]

There's a thread titled "Which partners at your firm are notoriously terrible to work for?" and I was hoping someone from K&E RX could chime in (here or in that thread). I've asked in that thread before but haven't gotten a response. Hopefully someone will chime in about NSPs/SPs that are notoriously terrible to work for. Thanks!

Change of tone but if you can get on the good side of Aparna Yenamandra and Steve Serejeddinni (I didn’t spell it right) you will work hard but have excellent bosses. They are excellent. High expectations of their associates but you’ll get rewarded with genuinely good work. The associates under them are also favored golden children of the group (it’ll be clear who they are fast, I won’t name them). They all deserve it - they are excellent people who are great to work for and learn from.

The RX team seems like it's full of just genuinely fantastic people. Any Chicago partners that are wonderful to work for? I'm a summer and they all were super nice. Husnick seemed like he would be tough to work for! No indication that he would be unpleasant though. I recognize that I have no real insight. Just commenting on the vibes I got as a know nothing summer.

Lots of rough parts about both KE and bankruptcy practice that are discussed at length here on TLS but one of the positives is that the Rx group in KE, especially in Chicago, has some seriously good and high caliber people around.

A lot of the Chicago partners are older rainmakers who mostly do smaller bespoke deals that don’t require as many associates, so you won’t necessarily have a ton of chances to work right under them (though you might for some of the younger ones). All great to chat with and learn from though - amazing war stories (Bennett, Nash, Kwasteniet, Anup, Seligman). Husnick is the smartest person in the entire group and you might actually be able to find a case under him depending.

Good NSPs = Jack Luze (if you have the right personality), Josh Altman (angel of a human), Winters (if you’re sharp). Look out for Hunter in NY as well - he’s not NSP yet but he’s a rockstar.

There’s some mid levels in chi coming up that are also excellent - you’ll know who they are from the summer. Hitching your wagon to a rockstar 4-6 year associate is a great way to buy yourself good work for years. Also, whole-ass it and take an interest in the bankruptcy code and developments in bankruptcy law. My lack of passion for it hindered me early.

[Anonymous User]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

Regardless of the merits, K&E obviously knew that this was constructively firing Clement. After all, the exact same thing happened to King & Spalding. Especially since he was guaranteed free rein when Kirkland acquihired Bancroft.

Yeah this mealy mouthed "we didn't fire him" is so cowardly, at least have the courage of your convictions.

Yea Kirkland can be a good landing spot if you're a medianish T14 law student interested in something like corp or restructuring. But if you are an aspiring litigator with grades that place you closer to the top end of your class, go elsewhere. The firm has become a $$$-first firm, which has definitely paid off, but two things can be true at the same time. A place can be both extremely profitable and a bad landing spot a certain class of law firm applicants (and laterals).

[Anonymous User]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

Regardless of the merits, K&E obviously knew that this was constructively firing Clement. After all, the exact same thing happened to King & Spalding. Especially since he was guaranteed free rein when Kirkland acquihired Bancroft.

Yeah this mealy mouthed "we didn't fire him" is so cowardly, at least have the courage of your convictions.

Yea Kirkland can be a good landing spot if you're a medianish T14 law student interested in something like corp or restructuring. But if you are an aspiring litigator with grades that place you closer to the top end of your class, go elsewhere. The firm has become a $$$-first firm, which has definitely paid off, but two things can be true at the same time. A place can be both extremely profitable and a bad landing spot a certain class of law firm applicants (and laterals).

It’s just a tough time to be a litigator in Biglaw. It’s falling out of favor generally because it’s not profitable compared to corporate. It used to be unthinkable for a firm to have over half of its attorneys not be litigators, now the exact opposite is true. Kirkland used to be a litigation firm, so did many other firms, but it just doesn’t bring in the money. It really seems like long-term, top flight litigation is moving to specialized boutiques. Just compare the profitability of litigation firms to the big corporate shops. Jenner made less than 500M last year - less than 10% of KEs revenues.* Quinn made a bit over 1/6 of KEs revenues.* Gibson a bit over 1/3. Biglaw business models are evolving and while there will always be a place for prestigious litigation in these places, they haven’t been an “engine of growth” in big firms for years.

[Anonymous User]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

Regardless of the merits, K&E obviously knew that this was constructively firing Clement. After all, the exact same thing happened to King & Spalding. Especially since he was guaranteed free rein when Kirkland acquihired Bancroft.

Yeah this mealy mouthed "we didn't fire him" is so cowardly, at least have the courage of your convictions.

Yea Kirkland can be a good landing spot if you're a medianish T14 law student interested in something like corp or restructuring. But if you are an aspiring litigator with grades that place you closer to the top end of your class, go elsewhere. The firm has become a $$$-first firm, which has definitely paid off, but two things can be true at the same time. A place can be both extremely profitable and a bad landing spot a certain class of law firm applicants (and laterals).

Very true in NY and to a lesser degree in DC (where top 1/3 is required for any firm.

Must add the caveat that in Chicago, Kirkland & Sidley are still the best litigation landing spots this side of Bartlit. Jenner, Mayer, and Latham are alright too I guess.

[Anonymous User]

There's a thread titled "Which partners at your firm are notoriously terrible to work for?" and I was hoping someone from K&E RX could chime in (here or in that thread). I've asked in that thread before but haven't gotten a response. Hopefully someone will chime in about NSPs/SPs that are notoriously terrible to work for. Thanks!

Change of tone but if you can get on the good side of Aparna Yenamandra and Steve Serejeddinni (I didn’t spell it right) you will work hard but have excellent bosses. They are excellent. High expectations of their associates but you’ll get rewarded with genuinely good work. The associates under them are also favored golden children of the group (it’ll be clear who they are fast, I won’t name them). They all deserve it - they are excellent people who are great to work for and learn from.

The RX team seems like it's full of just genuinely fantastic people. Any Chicago partners that are wonderful to work for? I'm a summer and they all were super nice. Husnick seemed like he would be tough to work for! No indication that he would be unpleasant though. I recognize that I have no real insight. Just commenting on the vibes I got as a know nothing summer.

Lots of rough parts about both KE and bankruptcy practice that are discussed at length here on TLS but one of the positives is that the Rx group in KE, especially in Chicago, has some seriously good and high caliber people around.

A lot of the Chicago partners are older rainmakers who mostly do smaller bespoke deals that don’t require as many associates, so you won’t necessarily have a ton of chances to work right under them (though you might for some of the younger ones). All great to chat with and learn from though - amazing war stories (Bennett, Nash, Kwasteniet, Anup, Seligman). Husnick is the smartest person in the entire group and you might actually be able to find a case under him depending.

Good NSPs = Jack Luze (if you have the right personality), Josh Altman (angel of a human), Winters (if you’re sharp). Look out for Hunter in NY as well - he’s not NSP yet but he’s a rockstar.

There’s some mid levels in chi coming up that are also excellent - you’ll know who they are from the summer. Hitching your wagon to a rockstar 4-6 year associate is a great way to buy yourself good work for years. Also, whole-ass it and take an interest in the bankruptcy code and developments in bankruptcy law. My lack of passion for it hindered me early.

Any insight into Debt Finance? Lateraling into the group soon

[Anonymous User]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

Regardless of the merits, K&E obviously knew that this was constructively firing Clement. After all, the exact same thing happened to King & Spalding. Especially since he was guaranteed free rein when Kirkland acquihired Bancroft.

Yeah this mealy mouthed "we didn't fire him" is so cowardly, at least have the courage of your convictions.

Yea Kirkland can be a good landing spot if you're a medianish T14 law student interested in something like corp or restructuring. But if you are an aspiring litigator with grades that place you closer to the top end of your class, go elsewhere. The firm has become a $$$-first firm, which has definitely paid off, but two things can be true at the same time. A place can be both extremely profitable and a bad landing spot a certain class of law firm applicants (and laterals).

It’s just a tough time to be a litigator in Biglaw. It’s falling out of favor generally because it’s not profitable compared to corporate. It used to be unthinkable for a firm to have over half of its attorneys not be litigators, now the exact opposite is true. Kirkland used to be a litigation firm, so did many other firms, but it just doesn’t bring in the money. It really seems like long-term, top flight litigation is moving to specialized boutiques. Just compare the profitability of litigation firms to the big corporate shops. Jenner made less than 500M last year - less than 10% of KEs revenues.* Quinn made a bit over 1/6 of KEs revenues.* Gibson a bit over 1/3. Biglaw business models are evolving and while there will always be a place for prestigious litigation in these places, they haven’t been an “engine of growth” in big firms for years.

This doesn't really address the point. Yes, it takes better grades to be a thriving litigator, because there are fewer spots--no one's really disputing that. The point is that there's not really a reason for high-performing law students with circuit clerkship credentials or better to choose Kirkland now (including DC, especially with them kicking out Clement in a thinly-veiled bid to become a profit-above-all-else Walmart of law firms). For sure, Kirkland isn't a terrible place for people in this category or anything. At the same time, there are many better options, including in biglaw (and not just boutiques). Why would you want to be a litigator in a place where you'll be an afterthought to some corporate mega machine that's overflowing with armies of mediocre T14 students?

[Anonymous User]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

Regardless of the merits, K&E obviously knew that this was constructively firing Clement. After all, the exact same thing happened to King & Spalding. Especially since he was guaranteed free rein when Kirkland acquihired Bancroft.

Yeah this mealy mouthed "we didn't fire him" is so cowardly, at least have the courage of your convictions.

Yea Kirkland can be a good landing spot if you're a medianish T14 law student interested in something like corp or restructuring. But if you are an aspiring litigator with grades that place you closer to the top end of your class, go elsewhere. The firm has become a $$$-first firm, which has definitely paid off, but two things can be true at the same time. A place can be both extremely profitable and a bad landing spot a certain class of law firm applicants (and laterals).

It’s just a tough time to be a litigator in Biglaw. It’s falling out of favor generally because it’s not profitable compared to corporate. It used to be unthinkable for a firm to have over half of its attorneys not be litigators, now the exact opposite is true. Kirkland used to be a litigation firm, so did many other firms, but it just doesn’t bring in the money. It really seems like long-term, top flight litigation is moving to specialized boutiques. Just compare the profitability of litigation firms to the big corporate shops. Jenner made less than 500M last year - less than 10% of KEs revenues.* Quinn made a bit over 1/6 of KEs revenues.* Gibson a bit over 1/3. Biglaw business models are evolving and while there will always be a place for prestigious litigation in these places, they haven’t been an “engine of growth” in big firms for years.

This doesn't really address the point. Yes, it takes better grades to be a thriving litigator, because there are fewer spots--no one's really disputing that. The point is that there's not really a reason for high-performing law students with circuit clerkship credentials or better to choose Kirkland now (including DC, especially with them kicking out Clement in a thinly-veiled bid to become a profit-above-all-else Walmart of law firms). For sure, Kirkland isn't a terrible place for people in this category or anything. At the same time, there are many better options, including in biglaw (and not just boutiques). Why would you want to be a litigator in a place where you'll be an afterthought to some corporate mega machine that's overflowing with armies of mediocre T14 students?

Exactly. At most biglaw firms nowadays, corporate generates more revenue than litigation. But accepting that premise, there are plenty of biglaw firms where (1) the corp group and its singular obsession with $$$$ doesn’t swallow up everything else quite in the way Kirkland’s does and (2) litigators are respected (both at the firm leadership level and in terms of firm culture). For example, in DC, I would take Covington or Gibson or Jenner (if you’re a liberal) over Kirk in a heartbeat. The Clement fiasco sent the message loud and clear to the next generation of all star litigators: stay away from Kirkland.

Then there are of obviously the boutiques (Keker, Munger etc) and other lit-only firms like W&C, Quinn, and so on.

[Anonymous User]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

Regardless of the merits, K&E obviously knew that this was constructively firing Clement. After all, the exact same thing happened to King & Spalding. Especially since he was guaranteed free rein when Kirkland acquihired Bancroft.

Yeah this mealy mouthed "we didn't fire him" is so cowardly, at least have the courage of your convictions.

Yea Kirkland can be a good landing spot if you're a medianish T14 law student interested in something like corp or restructuring. But if you are an aspiring litigator with grades that place you closer to the top end of your class, go elsewhere. The firm has become a $$$-first firm, which has definitely paid off, but two things can be true at the same time. A place can be both extremely profitable and a bad landing spot a certain class of law firm applicants (and laterals).

It’s just a tough time to be a litigator in Biglaw. It’s falling out of favor generally because it’s not profitable compared to corporate. It used to be unthinkable for a firm to have over half of its attorneys not be litigators, now the exact opposite is true. Kirkland used to be a litigation firm, so did many other firms, but it just doesn’t bring in the money. It really seems like long-term, top flight litigation is moving to specialized boutiques. Just compare the profitability of litigation firms to the big corporate shops. Jenner made less than 500M last year - less than 10% of KEs revenues.* Quinn made a bit over 1/6 of KEs revenues.* Gibson a bit over 1/3. Biglaw business models are evolving and while there will always be a place for prestigious litigation in these places, they haven’t been an “engine of growth” in big firms for years.

This doesn't really address the point. Yes, it takes better grades to be a thriving litigator, because there are fewer spots--no one's really disputing that. The point is that there's not really a reason for high-performing law students with circuit clerkship credentials or better to choose Kirkland now (including DC, especially with them kicking out Clement in a thinly-veiled bid to become a profit-above-all-else Walmart of law firms). For sure, Kirkland isn't a terrible place for people in this category or anything. At the same time, there are many better options, including in biglaw (and not just boutiques). Why would you want to be a litigator in a place where you'll be an afterthought to some corporate mega machine that's overflowing with armies of mediocre T14 students?

Exactly. At most biglaw firms nowadays, corporate generates more revenue than litigation. But accepting that premise, there are plenty of biglaw firms where (1) the corp group and its singular obsession with $$$$ doesn’t swallow up everything else quite in the way Kirkland’s does and (2) litigators are respected (both at the firm leadership level and in terms of firm culture). For example, in DC, I would take Covington or Gibson or Jenner (if you’re a liberal) over Kirk in a heartbeat. The Clement fiasco sent the message loud and clear to the next generation of all star litigators: stay away from Kirkland.

Then there are of obviously the boutiques (Keker, Munger etc) and other lit-only firms like W&C, Quinn, and so on.

No incoming litigation associate should use “the Clement fiasco” to pick a firm. I don’t even think a litigation lateral partner should. Clement is his own thing.

As a lit associate in DC, I probably wouldn’t come here if I had other comparable options, but Paul Clement wouldn’t be anywhere on my list of factors pro or con.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know the typical CB to offer (rejection) timeline at Kirkland NY? Had my CB 7 days ago and have not heard anything since, should I just give up and think of it as a ding?

[Anonymous User]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

Regardless of the merits, K&E obviously knew that this was constructively firing Clement. After all, the exact same thing happened to King & Spalding. Especially since he was guaranteed free rein when Kirkland acquihired Bancroft.

Yeah this mealy mouthed "we didn't fire him" is so cowardly, at least have the courage of your convictions.

Yea Kirkland can be a good landing spot if you're a medianish T14 law student interested in something like corp or restructuring. But if you are an aspiring litigator with grades that place you closer to the top end of your class, go elsewhere. The firm has become a $$$-first firm, which has definitely paid off, but two things can be true at the same time. A place can be both extremely profitable and a bad landing spot a certain class of law firm applicants (and laterals).

It’s just a tough time to be a litigator in Biglaw. It’s falling out of favor generally because it’s not profitable compared to corporate. It used to be unthinkable for a firm to have over half of its attorneys not be litigators, now the exact opposite is true. Kirkland used to be a litigation firm, so did many other firms, but it just doesn’t bring in the money. It really seems like long-term, top flight litigation is moving to specialized boutiques. Just compare the profitability of litigation firms to the big corporate shops. Jenner made less than 500M last year - less than 10% of KEs revenues.* Quinn made a bit over 1/6 of KEs revenues.* Gibson a bit over 1/3. Biglaw business models are evolving and while there will always be a place for prestigious litigation in these places, they haven’t been an “engine of growth” in big firms for years.

This doesn't really address the point. Yes, it takes better grades to be a thriving litigator, because there are fewer spots--no one's really disputing that. The point is that there's not really a reason for high-performing law students with circuit clerkship credentials or better to choose Kirkland now (including DC, especially with them kicking out Clement in a thinly-veiled bid to become a profit-above-all-else Walmart of law firms). For sure, Kirkland isn't a terrible place for people in this category or anything. At the same time, there are many better options, including in biglaw (and not just boutiques). Why would you want to be a litigator in a place where you'll be an afterthought to some corporate mega machine that's overflowing with armies of mediocre T14 students?

Exactly. At most biglaw firms nowadays, corporate generates more revenue than litigation. But accepting that premise, there are plenty of biglaw firms where (1) the corp group and its singular obsession with $$$$ doesn’t swallow up everything else quite in the way Kirkland’s does and (2) litigators are respected (both at the firm leadership level and in terms of firm culture). For example, in DC, I would take Covington or Gibson or Jenner (if you’re a liberal) over Kirk in a heartbeat. The Clement fiasco sent the message loud and clear to the next generation of all star litigators: stay away from Kirkland.

Then there are of obviously the boutiques (Keker, Munger etc) and other lit-only firms like W&C, Quinn, and so on.

I took Kirkland over a Gibson offer, cancelled a Covington callback, and didn't even bother applying to Jenner. I would make the same choice again. Kirkland's DC office is stacked with talent and the idea that a talented associate who actually wants to work on high stakes litigation would somehow be lost in "armies of mediocre 14 grads" here is crazy. I'm sorry to see Clement go but all this 0L prognosticating as if KE is now some lit wasteland is over the top.

[Anonymous User]

Personal gripe but I hate that Kirkland corporate / rx chicago is not grouped separately than NY. Yes litigation is the most competitive in terms of GPA. But at my T14, most of the corporate / rx summers are decently above median.