Kirkland Megathread Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:27 pm

https://www.reddit.com/r/biglaw/comment ... d_layoffs/

I continue to believe, 99%, that this is all a "dog chasing its own tail" situation where there are: a) no layoffs, b) no plan for layoffs, and it's all just neurotic lawyers driving each other crazy a/o outsiders hoping that the firm gets a comeuppance. That said, for what it's worth, this is also being discussed over at reddit. Note the total lack of verifiable information there too.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:39 pm
does rx really work harder than other groups? outside of the actual practice area and type of work you would do in rx, is there a benefit to choosing it over one of k&e's corporate groups? what is the culture like? A second year in the chi office mentioned it's the most pleasant group you can join at k&e in terms of personalities and culture/the people.

trying to get a sense of what you guys have to say since anonymous opinions can at times be more insightful.
I think they work pretty hard when RX is going off. Im not in RX but helped on the corporate side during covid 2020. It seemed like a bit of a clusterfuk, associates working all hours of the night, etc.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:11 pm

As a specialist who sometimes helps Rx out, that practice group does seem to have it rough. It's like a terrible combination of lit and transactional

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:15 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:27 pm
https://www.reddit.com/r/biglaw/comment ... d_layoffs/

I continue to believe, 99%, that this is all a "dog chasing its own tail" situation where there are: a) no layoffs, b) no plan for layoffs, and it's all just neurotic lawyers driving each other crazy a/o outsiders hoping that the firm gets a comeuppance. That said, for what it's worth, this is also being discussed over at reddit. Note the total lack of verifiable information there too.
I have a good relationship with a very senior SP in my office (on some key committees) and asked them about all this stuff. They said that there are NO layoffs but distinguished between “layoffs” and “counseling people out for performance like all BigLaw firms had done regularly prior to COVID.”

The distinction being that layoffs are when otherwise acceptable performers are pushed out so that the firm can cut costs due to economic pressure. In contrast, if one or a handful of specific associates is consistently getting low hours (without justification) or poor reviews, those people can get counseled out even if the firm is doing great.

We had a whole conversation about Kirkland’s finances that I obviously can’t share in detail here, but I’ll just summarize that it’s all good so far. Notably, our average associate hours billed in 2022 (though August) is basically the same as it always was pre-COVID, which is obviously a decrease from 2021’s craziness but is a level they’re happy with. Note that this is INCLUDING the massive amounts of new associates brought in recently, so we currently have enough business to maintain them all. Other financial metrics are solid too.

So, the SP acknowledged that some people were being counseled out during reviews, but that this was happening solely for hours/performance (meaning anyone with decent reviews and hours shouldn’t worry). It’s also happening as part of the normal review process, so if you had your review already with no issues, you shouldn’t worry about a random mass layoff like Latham did in 2008.

They also mentioned that this included people who would have been counseled out in 2020 or 2021, but weren’t until now (which could make the numbers seem bigger). They didn’t want to push out underperformers during 2020 because they thought that was fucked up given COVID etc. Then, in 2021 they didn’t want to push them out because average hours were so crazy high that it would have made things worse for everyone else. Now that COVID is over and workloads are back to historical averages, all those delayed consequences are happening during this year’s reviews.

That was all reassuring for me, hope it eases some anxiety here too.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:53 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:15 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:27 pm
https://www.reddit.com/r/biglaw/comment ... d_layoffs/

I continue to believe, 99%, that this is all a "dog chasing its own tail" situation where there are: a) no layoffs, b) no plan for layoffs, and it's all just neurotic lawyers driving each other crazy a/o outsiders hoping that the firm gets a comeuppance. That said, for what it's worth, this is also being discussed over at reddit. Note the total lack of verifiable information there too.
I have a good relationship with a very senior SP in my office (on some key committees) and asked them about all this stuff. They said that there are NO layoffs but distinguished between “layoffs” and “counseling people out for performance like all BigLaw firms had done regularly prior to COVID.”

The distinction being that layoffs are when otherwise acceptable performers are pushed out so that the firm can cut costs due to economic pressure. In contrast, if one or a handful of specific associates is consistently getting low hours (without justification) or poor reviews, those people can get counseled out even if the firm is doing great.

We had a whole conversation about Kirkland’s finances that I obviously can’t share in detail here, but I’ll just summarize that it’s all good so far. Notably, our average associate hours billed in 2022 (though August) is basically the same as it always was pre-COVID, which is obviously a decrease from 2021’s craziness but is a level they’re happy with. Note that this is INCLUDING the massive amounts of new associates brought in recently, so we currently have enough business to maintain them all. Other financial metrics are solid too.

So, the SP acknowledged that some people were being counseled out during reviews, but that this was happening solely for hours/performance (meaning anyone with decent reviews and hours shouldn’t worry). It’s also happening as part of the normal review process, so if you had your review already with no issues, you shouldn’t worry about a random mass layoff like Latham did in 2008.

They also mentioned that this included people who would have been counseled out in 2020 or 2021, but weren’t until now (which could make the numbers seem bigger). They didn’t want to push out underperformers during 2020 because they thought that was fucked up given COVID etc. Then, in 2021 they didn’t want to push them out because average hours were so crazy high that it would have made things worse for everyone else. Now that COVID is over and workloads are back to historical averages, all those delayed consequences are happening during this year’s reviews.

That was all reassuring for me, hope it eases some anxiety here too.
Given that "underperformance" is relative, I'm gonna guess your post has the opposite effect of what you thought it might have.

On the bright side, your senior SP's shoes are shining hard AF thanks to all that boot licking.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Sep 29, 2022 11:27 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:15 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:27 pm
https://www.reddit.com/r/biglaw/comment ... d_layoffs/

I continue to believe, 99%, that this is all a "dog chasing its own tail" situation where there are: a) no layoffs, b) no plan for layoffs, and it's all just neurotic lawyers driving each other crazy a/o outsiders hoping that the firm gets a comeuppance. That said, for what it's worth, this is also being discussed over at reddit. Note the total lack of verifiable information there too.
I have a good relationship with a very senior SP in my office (on some key committees) and asked them about all this stuff. They said that there are NO layoffs but distinguished between “layoffs” and “counseling people out for performance like all BigLaw firms had done regularly prior to COVID.”

The distinction being that layoffs are when otherwise acceptable performers are pushed out so that the firm can cut costs due to economic pressure. In contrast, if one or a handful of specific associates is consistently getting low hours (without justification) or poor reviews, those people can get counseled out even if the firm is doing great.

We had a whole conversation about Kirkland’s finances that I obviously can’t share in detail here, but I’ll just summarize that it’s all good so far. Notably, our average associate hours billed in 2022 (though August) is basically the same as it always was pre-COVID, which is obviously a decrease from 2021’s craziness but is a level they’re happy with. Note that this is INCLUDING the massive amounts of new associates brought in recently, so we currently have enough business to maintain them all. Other financial metrics are solid too.

So, the SP acknowledged that some people were being counseled out during reviews, but that this was happening solely for hours/performance (meaning anyone with decent reviews and hours shouldn’t worry). It’s also happening as part of the normal review process, so if you had your review already with no issues, you shouldn’t worry about a random mass layoff like Latham did in 2008.

They also mentioned that this included people who would have been counseled out in 2020 or 2021, but weren’t until now (which could make the numbers seem bigger). They didn’t want to push out underperformers during 2020 because they thought that was fucked up given COVID etc. Then, in 2021 they didn’t want to push them out because average hours were so crazy high that it would have made things worse for everyone else. Now that COVID is over and workloads are back to historical averages, all those delayed consequences are happening during this year’s reviews.

That was all reassuring for me, hope it eases some anxiety here too.
lol you must be terrible at poker

thisismytlsuername

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

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by thisismytlsuername » Thu Sep 29, 2022 11:34 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:15 am
They also mentioned that this included people who would have been counseled out in 2020 or 2021, but weren’t until now (which could make the numbers seem bigger). They didn’t want to push out underperformers during 2020 because they thought that was fucked up given COVID etc. Then, in 2021 they didn’t want to push them out because average hours were so crazy high that it would have made things worse for everyone else. Now that COVID is over and workloads are back to historical averages, all those delayed consequences are happening during this year’s reviews.

That was all reassuring for me, hope it eases some anxiety here too.
lmao I wonder if the Kirkland associates I know who got "counseled out" in 2020 and 2021 would agree with this.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Sep 29, 2022 11:52 am

thisismytlsuername wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 11:34 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:15 am
They also mentioned that this included people who would have been counseled out in 2020 or 2021, but weren’t until now (which could make the numbers seem bigger). They didn’t want to push out underperformers during 2020 because they thought that was fucked up given COVID etc. Then, in 2021 they didn’t want to push them out because average hours were so crazy high that it would have made things worse for everyone else. Now that COVID is over and workloads are back to historical averages, all those delayed consequences are happening during this year’s reviews.

That was all reassuring for me, hope it eases some anxiety here too.
lmao I wonder if the Kirkland associates I know who got "counseled out" in 2020 and 2021 would agree with this.
LOL "we don't push people out during COVID when we're too busy" is about as compassionate as Andy Calder's K&E makeover marketing scheme.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:04 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:53 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:15 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:27 pm
https://www.reddit.com/r/biglaw/comment ... d_layoffs/

I continue to believe, 99%, that this is all a "dog chasing its own tail" situation where there are: a) no layoffs, b) no plan for layoffs, and it's all just neurotic lawyers driving each other crazy a/o outsiders hoping that the firm gets a comeuppance. That said, for what it's worth, this is also being discussed over at reddit. Note the total lack of verifiable information there too.
I have a good relationship with a very senior SP in my office (on some key committees) and asked them about all this stuff. They said that there are NO layoffs but distinguished between “layoffs” and “counseling people out for performance like all BigLaw firms had done regularly prior to COVID.”

The distinction being that layoffs are when otherwise acceptable performers are pushed out so that the firm can cut costs due to economic pressure. In contrast, if one or a handful of specific associates is consistently getting low hours (without justification) or poor reviews, those people can get counseled out even if the firm is doing great.

We had a whole conversation about Kirkland’s finances that I obviously can’t share in detail here, but I’ll just summarize that it’s all good so far. Notably, our average associate hours billed in 2022 (though August) is basically the same as it always was pre-COVID, which is obviously a decrease from 2021’s craziness but is a level they’re happy with. Note that this is INCLUDING the massive amounts of new associates brought in recently, so we currently have enough business to maintain them all. Other financial metrics are solid too.

So, the SP acknowledged that some people were being counseled out during reviews, but that this was happening solely for hours/performance (meaning anyone with decent reviews and hours shouldn’t worry). It’s also happening as part of the normal review process, so if you had your review already with no issues, you shouldn’t worry about a random mass layoff like Latham did in 2008.

They also mentioned that this included people who would have been counseled out in 2020 or 2021, but weren’t until now (which could make the numbers seem bigger). They didn’t want to push out underperformers during 2020 because they thought that was fucked up given COVID etc. Then, in 2021 they didn’t want to push them out because average hours were so crazy high that it would have made things worse for everyone else. Now that COVID is over and workloads are back to historical averages, all those delayed consequences are happening during this year’s reviews.

That was all reassuring for me, hope it eases some anxiety here too.
Given that "underperformance" is relative, I'm gonna guess your post has the opposite effect of what you thought it might have.

On the bright side, your senior SP's shoes are shining hard AF thanks to all that boot licking.
Regardless what you think about the legitimacy of routine cuts of low performers (and how that distinction is made) there is a clear difference between that behavior, which all firms have done routinely for decades, and “layoffs” which are an unusual occurrence that average performers should worry about getting caught up in.

Apologies for forgetting that TLS is primarily cynical, sarcastic, pessimists that will always look for the worst possible interpretation of everything.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Chrstgtr

Bronze
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:53 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Chrstgtr » Thu Sep 29, 2022 1:04 pm

This happens every year. If you go back, you’ll see layoff rumors at this time each cycle. Big law pushes people. That’s the model. That might be new to people that started during the craziness

User avatar
nealric

Moderator
Posts: 4273
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by nealric » Thu Sep 29, 2022 1:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:04 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:53 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:15 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:27 pm
https://www.reddit.com/r/biglaw/comment ... d_layoffs/

I continue to believe, 99%, that this is all a "dog chasing its own tail" situation where there are: a) no layoffs, b) no plan for layoffs, and it's all just neurotic lawyers driving each other crazy a/o outsiders hoping that the firm gets a comeuppance. That said, for what it's worth, this is also being discussed over at reddit. Note the total lack of verifiable information there too.
I have a good relationship with a very senior SP in my office (on some key committees) and asked them about all this stuff. They said that there are NO layoffs but distinguished between “layoffs” and “counseling people out for performance like all BigLaw firms had done regularly prior to COVID.”

The distinction being that layoffs are when otherwise acceptable performers are pushed out so that the firm can cut costs due to economic pressure. In contrast, if one or a handful of specific associates is consistently getting low hours (without justification) or poor reviews, those people can get counseled out even if the firm is doing great.

We had a whole conversation about Kirkland’s finances that I obviously can’t share in detail here, but I’ll just summarize that it’s all good so far. Notably, our average associate hours billed in 2022 (though August) is basically the same as it always was pre-COVID, which is obviously a decrease from 2021’s craziness but is a level they’re happy with. Note that this is INCLUDING the massive amounts of new associates brought in recently, so we currently have enough business to maintain them all. Other financial metrics are solid too.

So, the SP acknowledged that some people were being counseled out during reviews, but that this was happening solely for hours/performance (meaning anyone with decent reviews and hours shouldn’t worry). It’s also happening as part of the normal review process, so if you had your review already with no issues, you shouldn’t worry about a random mass layoff like Latham did in 2008.

They also mentioned that this included people who would have been counseled out in 2020 or 2021, but weren’t until now (which could make the numbers seem bigger). They didn’t want to push out underperformers during 2020 because they thought that was fucked up given COVID etc. Then, in 2021 they didn’t want to push them out because average hours were so crazy high that it would have made things worse for everyone else. Now that COVID is over and workloads are back to historical averages, all those delayed consequences are happening during this year’s reviews.

That was all reassuring for me, hope it eases some anxiety here too.
Given that "underperformance" is relative, I'm gonna guess your post has the opposite effect of what you thought it might have.

On the bright side, your senior SP's shoes are shining hard AF thanks to all that boot licking.
Regardless what you think about the legitimacy of routine cuts of low performers (and how that distinction is made) there is a clear difference between that behavior, which all firms have done routinely for decades, and “layoffs” which are an unusual occurrence that average performers should worry about getting caught up in.

Apologies for forgetting that TLS is primarily cynical, sarcastic, pessimists that will always look for the worst possible interpretation of everything.
I wouldn't say there's a "clear difference." There's a whole spectrum between firing someone who is grossly incompetent or who committed an act of malfeasance and letting go of rockstar performers because there's just no work or prospect of work for them any time soon.

The bar for getting counseled out changes according to economics. In bad times, very good associates may be let go with trumped up performance issues. In good times, you have to be truly awful to be involuntarily shown the door. Announced layoffs with absolutely no performance nexus at all are extremely rare in biglaw and usually only happen in extraordinary circumstances (like the great recession) or when the firm's very existence is in jeopardy. Announced layoffs are somewhat more common with staff (especially as the accepted ratio of attorneys to staff has gone up over time).

I would say 10% of a given class year being counseled out is probably fairly average involuntary attrition. However, it's probably more of a thing in years 1-5. There's a certain portion of any incoming class who was never a fit for biglaw in the first place (either due to desire or aptitude, or some combo thereof), and another portion who just can't clear the hump from junior grunt to being able to truly understand and engage with matters. IME, senior associates are more likely to leave on their own accord or be soft counseled out when they are up for partner (i.e., no timeline). However, the "up or out" for your partnership year has mostly been replaced by a counsel title for people who don't get the nod for whatever reason.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Sep 29, 2022 1:40 pm

nealric wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 1:25 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:04 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:53 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:15 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:27 pm
https://www.reddit.com/r/biglaw/comment ... d_layoffs/

I continue to believe, 99%, that this is all a "dog chasing its own tail" situation where there are: a) no layoffs, b) no plan for layoffs, and it's all just neurotic lawyers driving each other crazy a/o outsiders hoping that the firm gets a comeuppance. That said, for what it's worth, this is also being discussed over at reddit. Note the total lack of verifiable information there too.
I have a good relationship with a very senior SP in my office (on some key committees) and asked them about all this stuff. They said that there are NO layoffs but distinguished between “layoffs” and “counseling people out for performance like all BigLaw firms had done regularly prior to COVID.”

The distinction being that layoffs are when otherwise acceptable performers are pushed out so that the firm can cut costs due to economic pressure. In contrast, if one or a handful of specific associates is consistently getting low hours (without justification) or poor reviews, those people can get counseled out even if the firm is doing great.

We had a whole conversation about Kirkland’s finances that I obviously can’t share in detail here, but I’ll just summarize that it’s all good so far. Notably, our average associate hours billed in 2022 (though August) is basically the same as it always was pre-COVID, which is obviously a decrease from 2021’s craziness but is a level they’re happy with. Note that this is INCLUDING the massive amounts of new associates brought in recently, so we currently have enough business to maintain them all. Other financial metrics are solid too.

So, the SP acknowledged that some people were being counseled out during reviews, but that this was happening solely for hours/performance (meaning anyone with decent reviews and hours shouldn’t worry). It’s also happening as part of the normal review process, so if you had your review already with no issues, you shouldn’t worry about a random mass layoff like Latham did in 2008.

They also mentioned that this included people who would have been counseled out in 2020 or 2021, but weren’t until now (which could make the numbers seem bigger). They didn’t want to push out underperformers during 2020 because they thought that was fucked up given COVID etc. Then, in 2021 they didn’t want to push them out because average hours were so crazy high that it would have made things worse for everyone else. Now that COVID is over and workloads are back to historical averages, all those delayed consequences are happening during this year’s reviews.

That was all reassuring for me, hope it eases some anxiety here too.
Given that "underperformance" is relative, I'm gonna guess your post has the opposite effect of what you thought it might have.

On the bright side, your senior SP's shoes are shining hard AF thanks to all that boot licking.
Regardless what you think about the legitimacy of routine cuts of low performers (and how that distinction is made) there is a clear difference between that behavior, which all firms have done routinely for decades, and “layoffs” which are an unusual occurrence that average performers should worry about getting caught up in.

Apologies for forgetting that TLS is primarily cynical, sarcastic, pessimists that will always look for the worst possible interpretation of everything.
I wouldn't say there's a "clear difference." There's a whole spectrum between firing someone who is grossly incompetent or who committed an act of malfeasance and letting go of rockstar performers because there's just no work or prospect of work for them any time soon.

The bar for getting counseled out changes according to economics. In bad times, very good associates may be let go with trumped up performance issues. In good times, you have to be truly awful to be involuntarily shown the door. Announced layoffs with absolutely no performance nexus at all are extremely rare in biglaw and usually only happen in extraordinary circumstances (like the great recession) or when the firm's very existence is in jeopardy. Announced layoffs are somewhat more common with staff (especially as the accepted ratio of attorneys to staff has gone up over time).

I would say 10% of a given class year being counseled out is probably fairly average involuntary attrition. However, it's probably more of a thing in years 1-5. There's a certain portion of any incoming class who was never a fit for biglaw in the first place (either due to desire or aptitude, or some combo thereof), and another portion who just can't clear the hump from junior grunt to being able to truly understand and engage with matters. IME, senior associates are more likely to leave on their own accord or be soft counseled out when they are up for partner (i.e., no timeline). However, the "up or out" for your partnership year has mostly been replaced by a counsel title for people who don't get the nod for whatever reason.
Associate who chatted with an SP here. Thank you for outlining all of this in a sensible way. I’d heard this take before as a “here’s how things work in general and is probably what we’re seeing now” and part of my motivation to ask the SP was to get some insight on whether this take was right, or if something more notable was happening (like a sharp decline in work coupled with recent over hiring leading to necessary cost cuts).

The TL;DR of what I wrote above is basically just confirmation that what you wrote here is the actual situation, rather than theories from the outside. Only difference being that the SP mentioned reductions being less than 5%, rather than the 10% you estimated (as you noted this can go up or down in future years).

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:11 pm
As a specialist who sometimes helps Rx out, that practice group does seem to have it rough. It's like a terrible combination of lit and transactional
:shock: Seems I've made a mistake choosing the RX group.

Now accepting positives about the Chicago RX group to make myself feel better.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:42 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:11 pm
As a specialist who sometimes helps Rx out, that practice group does seem to have it rough. It's like a terrible combination of lit and transactional
:shock: Seems I've made a mistake choosing the RX group.

Now accepting positives about the Chicago RX group to make myself feel better.
There's a certain type of personality that really loves restructuring work here. I'm not saying that as a neg. If you're hard charging, love the idea of litigating on tight deadlines, think it would be cool to stand up in court as soon as possible, and also like the concept of still sort of getting to be a "deal bro" and flying to NY / TX / Delaware regularly, you might like restructuring. The practice chews up and spits out many associates but if you're a fit then you'll like it.

User avatar
Chardee_MacDennis

Bronze
Posts: 309
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:26 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Chardee_MacDennis » Thu Sep 29, 2022 4:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:42 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:11 pm
As a specialist who sometimes helps Rx out, that practice group does seem to have it rough. It's like a terrible combination of lit and transactional
:shock: Seems I've made a mistake choosing the RX group.

Now accepting positives about the Chicago RX group to make myself feel better.
PM me.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:28 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:52 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:42 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:11 pm
As a specialist who sometimes helps Rx out, that practice group does seem to have it rough. It's like a terrible combination of lit and transactional
:shock: Seems I've made a mistake choosing the RX group.

Now accepting positives about the Chicago RX group to make myself feel better.
There's a certain type of personality that really loves restructuring work here. I'm not saying that as a neg. If you're hard charging, love the idea of litigating on tight deadlines, think it would be cool to stand up in court as soon as possible, and also like the concept of still sort of getting to be a "deal bro" and flying to NY / TX / Delaware regularly, you might like restructuring. The practice chews up and spits out many associates but if you're a fit then you'll like it.
Is this true about NY Rx? I've gotten the sense that NY and Chicago Rx are pretty similar but haven't started yet so unsure.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:50 am

Can someone give some insight on what 4th and 5th years should expect in terms of review scores (laterals within the past ~12 months and non-laterals). This is my first review process so really trying to figure it out.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

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


Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:50 am
Can someone give some insight on what 4th and 5th years should expect in terms of review scores (laterals within the past ~12 months and non-laterals). This is my first review process so really trying to figure it out.
A 3 would be normal/typical/expected.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:13 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:50 am
Can someone give some insight on what 4th and 5th years should expect in terms of review scores (laterals within the past ~12 months and non-laterals). This is my first review process so really trying to figure it out.
A 3 would be normal/typical/expected.
Some 4th years (at least in my office) are getting 2s, but its very rare. As a 5th year, you should be getting a 2 and then before NSP you should be getting a 1.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:58 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:13 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:50 am
Can someone give some insight on what 4th and 5th years should expect in terms of review scores (laterals within the past ~12 months and non-laterals). This is my first review process so really trying to figure it out.
A 3 would be normal/typical/expected.
Some 4th years (at least in my office) are getting 2s, but its very rare. As a 5th year, you should be getting a 2 and then before NSP you should be getting a 1.
Would you get NSP going into/as a 6th year (i.e., after completing your 5th year)? Or after completing your 6th year?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:17 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:06 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:58 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:13 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:50 am
Can someone give some insight on what 4th and 5th years should expect in terms of review scores (laterals within the past ~12 months and non-laterals). This is my first review process so really trying to figure it out.
A 3 would be normal/typical/expected.
Some 4th years (at least in my office) are getting 2s, but its very rare. As a 5th year, you should be getting a 2 and then before NSP you should be getting a 1.
Would you get NSP going into/as a 6th year (i.e., after completing your 5th year)? Or after completing your 6th year?
You'll find out Sept of your 6th year, typically effective early Oct.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:58 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:13 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:50 am
Can someone give some insight on what 4th and 5th years should expect in terms of review scores (laterals within the past ~12 months and non-laterals). This is my first review process so really trying to figure it out.
A 3 would be normal/typical/expected.
Some 4th years (at least in my office) are getting 2s, but its very rare. As a 5th year, you should be getting a 2 and then before NSP you should be getting a 1.
People also make NSP w/ a 3 5th year and a 2 (or 1) 6th year. The only strict requirement from my understanding is a 2 or 1 your 6th year (which is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy--if you're gonna make NSP, they'll give you the 2 or 1 that year).

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:51 pm

So based on the last two posts, I think as a K&E lateral mid-lvl associate, you are first up for NSP at the end of your 6th year, not at the end of your 5th year. So you need to have gotten a 2 or 1 at the end of your 6th year, right, and it's ok to have gotten a 3 after your 5th/going into 6th year?

Saying you "find out in Sept of 6th year" is a little confusing to me as a lateral because September can be the end or the beginning of a given year, lol.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:51 pm
So based on the last two posts, I think as a K&E lateral mid-lvl associate, you are first up for NSP at the end of your 6th year, not at the end of your 5th year. So you need to have gotten a 2 or 1 at the end of your 6th year, right, and it's ok to have gotten a 3 after your 5th/going into 6th year?

Saying you "find out in Sept of 6th year" is a little confusing to me as a lateral because September can be the end or the beginning of a given year, lol.
Yes. You're up for NSP at the end of your 6th year (Kirkland "years" for review purposes end in the summer). If they promote you to NSP that year, you'll receive a 2 or 1 rating. You can have a 3 your 5th year and still make NSP your 6th year. You find out about your review and promotion in September.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428125
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Megathread

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:58 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:51 pm
So based on the last two posts, I think as a K&E lateral mid-lvl associate, you are first up for NSP at the end of your 6th year, not at the end of your 5th year. So you need to have gotten a 2 or 1 at the end of your 6th year, right, and it's ok to have gotten a 3 after your 5th/going into 6th year?

Saying you "find out in Sept of 6th year" is a little confusing to me as a lateral because September can be the end or the beginning of a given year, lol.
Yes. You're up for NSP at the end of your 6th year (Kirkland "years" for review purposes end in the summer). If they promote you to NSP that year, you'll receive a 2 or 1 rating. You can have a 3 your 5th year and still make NSP your 6th year. You find out about your review and promotion in September.
If you have a 3 at the end of your 5th year, but are up for NSP at the end of your 6th year, it's the rating at the end of your 6th year that matters here, right? Not the rating at end of 5th year, because at that point you still have a whole additional year (that is, your 6th year) which will be your last year of a rating before you become an NSP. So I'm not sure why your 5th year's rating matters much.

For example, if you get a 4 in your 5th year (let's say RL stuff is busy, or your burned out, or whatever) but then you really pick it up the following year, that's what i'd think matters: It's the rating at the end of the 6th year, right before/right as you become an NSP, that matters. Or have I missed something?

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

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


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”