Mindset of a Kirkland Share Partner Forum

[Anonymous User]

I’m an NSP at Kirkland but grew up at more “white shoe” lockstep firms. Posting this for the benefit of law students as we approach recruiting season.

In 2016, the top end of Cravath’s partner scale was $4 million. As a first year share Kirkland partner today, you’re bringing home a little over $2 million and the “middle class” partners easily make $3-4 million. There’s a meaningful cohort of partners making comfortably above $10 million (closer to $20 than $10)

It’s important to put comp into context. You have to realize that your average Kirkland share partner peaks in his or her 40’s and is making substantially more money than God ever intended law firm partners to make.

It‘s also a far more perilous environment. The second they stop producing, their shares get cut - share allocations are re-evaluated every other year. At the lockstep firms, the rainmakers are in their 50’s. At Kirkland, they’re in their 40’s. It’s incredibly difficult to grind under that system for longer than that. Indeed, the Kirkland pension vests in early 50’s to reflect that reality. Pensions at peer firms vest at 62 to 65.

Your average Kirkland share partner is also cash poor. Because he or she is scraping as much of their earnings into co-invest vehicles managed by the firm’s private equity clients, which are long-term investments.

The firm is no longer run by Kirkland partners. The firm committee is populated by powerful partners from the exact firms that everyone believes have better cultures - Cravath, Simpson, Sidley, Weil, etc. But these are the partners that decided money was more important.

So net it out. You have a generation of young overworked partners living in constant fear of share cuts but also have the chance to make more money than any lawyer could have imagined. They’re also cash poor so they don’t “feel” rich on a day-to-day basis.

The ONLY THING these partners care about is maximizing their comp during their “peak” window. They don’t care about the firm, the associates, or their partners. They care about their families and justifying years of toil.

The crazy thing is that this is actually the most refreshing firm I’ve ever worked that. Because they own it. They are honest with themselves and each other about what matters. So if you’re a rockstar associate or NSP in a hot practice group, they will very explicit in showing that they value you. If the economy takes a turn for the worse and the firm does poorly - fuck you. Remember it’s possible for Kirkland to have a record year but still be tightening the belt. Because they’re not focused on the firm. They’re focused on continued profit growth.

Every major firm now thinks this way - whether they admit it or not. But at least Kirkland is transparent about it. The lockstep firms still cling to the bullshit pageantry, which is entirely designed to shame associates into killing themselves in exchange for same money and zero transparency about your partner prospects.

Pick your poison. And you should expect to lateral at least once.

[Casper123]

I’m an NSP at Kirkland but grew up at more “white shoe” lockstep firms. Posting this for the benefit of law students as we approach recruiting season.

In 2016, the top end of Cravath’s partner scale was $4 million. As a first year share Kirkland partner today, you’re bringing home a little over $2 million and the “middle class” partners easily make $3-4 million. There’s a meaningful cohort of partners making comfortably above $10 million (closer to $20 than $10)

It’s important to put comp into context. You have to realize that your average Kirkland share partner peaks in his or her 40’s and is making substantially more money than God ever intended law firm partners to make.

It‘s also a far more perilous environment. The second they stop producing, their shares get cut - share allocations are re-evaluated every other year. At the lockstep firms, the rainmakers are in their 50’s. At Kirkland, they’re in their 40’s. It’s incredibly difficult to grind under that system for longer than that. Indeed, the Kirkland pension vests in early 50’s to reflect that reality. Pensions at peer firms vest at 62 to 65.

Your average Kirkland share partner is also cash poor. Because he or she is scraping as much of their earnings into co-invest vehicles managed by the firm’s private equity clients, which are long-term investments.

The firm is no longer run by Kirkland partners. The firm committee is populated by powerful partners from the exact firms that everyone believes have better cultures - Cravath, Simpson, Sidley, Weil, etc. But these are the partners that decided money was more important.

So net it out. You have a generation of young overworked partners living in constant fear of share cuts but also have the chance to make more money than any lawyer could have imagined. They’re also cash poor so they don’t “feel” rich on a day-to-day basis.

The ONLY THING these partners care about is maximizing their comp during their “peak” window. They don’t care about the firm, the associates, or their partners. They care about their families and justifying years of toil.

The crazy thing is that this is actually the most refreshing firm I’ve ever worked that. Because they own it. They are honest with themselves and each other about what matters. So if you’re a rockstar associate or NSP in a hot practice group, they will very explicit in showing that they value you. If the economy takes a turn for the worse and the firm does poorly - fuck you. Remember it’s possible for Kirkland to have a record year but still be tightening the belt. Because they’re not focused on the firm. They’re focused on continued profit growth.

Every major firm now thinks this way - whether they admit it or not. But at least Kirkland is transparent about it. The lockstep firms still cling to the bullshit pageantry, which is entirely designed to shame associates into killing themselves in exchange for same money and zero transparency about your partner prospects.

Pick your poison. And you should expect to lateral at least once.

OK so the good thing about Kirkland is that they are transparent about the fact that they do everything (often at the expense of associates) to maximize profits? That's like voting for Trump because "at least he's honest".

Also kinda shocking that the average Cravath partner is not only interested in loyalty to the brand.

[Anonymous User]

Did you really think this would make Kirkland look more appealing? Yikes. If I were a 1L, I would be running away.

[Anonymous User]

Sounds exhausting. I disagree with your assertion that every firm is secretly the same behind closed doors just because partners from other firms that are now at Kirkland are a certain way (why do you think they went to Kirkland…?). Are most, if not all, partners greedy and selfish? Probably, but they don’t all relish or welcome the idea of a hunger games law firm.

[Anonymous User]

Are people objecting to this post because they don’t think firms other than Kirkland put maximizing profit first?

[Anonymous User]

Are people objecting to this post because they don’t think firms other than Kirkland put maximizing profit first?

Still a matter of degree. Or are you asserting that KE is exactly the same as other firms?

[Anonymous User]

Sounds exhausting. I disagree with your assertion that every firm is secretly the same behind closed doors just because partners from other firms that are now at Kirkland are a certain way (why do you think they went to Kirkland…?). Are most, if not all, partners greedy and selfish? Probably, but they don’t all relish or welcome the idea of a hunger games law firm.

I’m sure there are old line professionals that do this for the craft and money stops mattering after a certain level.

But if you think the leadership at Cravath, DPW, S&C, Paul Weiss, whatever other old school firm you have in mind isn’t constantly wrestling with the issue of keeping their best partners without upending their comp system, then you’re dead wrong. People want to be paid what they’re worth and don’t like seeing others make substantially more for doing the same work. That’s just a fact. No non-boomer partner is going to turn down an opportunity to double their pay.

[Anonymous User]

Did you really think this would make Kirkland look more appealing? Yikes. If I were a 1L, I would be running away.

I don’t care about making it more or less appealing. We’re gonna get hundreds of motivated first years no matter what flavor of culture koolaid Cravath is shilling this year. Same with all of our peer firms. And then 90% of those juniors will quit or lateral before they’re up for partner. I could care less. But if this post helps law students be honest with themselves about where they’ll be better positioned for success and sort themselves, then yay.

[Anonymous User]

Sounds exhausting. I disagree with your assertion that every firm is secretly the same behind closed doors just because partners from other firms that are now at Kirkland are a certain way (why do you think they went to Kirkland…?). Are most, if not all, partners greedy and selfish? Probably, but they don’t all relish or welcome the idea of a hunger games law firm.

I’m sure there are old line professionals that do this for the craft and money stops mattering after a certain level.

But if you think the leadership at Cravath, DPW, S&C, Paul Weiss, whatever other old school firm you have in mind isn’t constantly wrestling with the issue of keeping their best partners without upending their comp system, then you’re dead wrong. People want to be paid what they’re worth and don’t like seeing others make substantially more for doing the same work. That’s just a fact. No non-boomer partner is going to turn down an opportunity to double their pay.

The difference is that KE doesn't wrestle with anything because they are very comfortable just treating associates like shit. Do other firms genuinely care about associates? Maybe, maybe not. But their actions show they do end up treating associates differently.

[Anonymous User]

Sounds exhausting. I disagree with your assertion that every firm is secretly the same behind closed doors just because partners from other firms that are now at Kirkland are a certain way (why do you think they went to Kirkland…?). Are most, if not all, partners greedy and selfish? Probably, but they don’t all relish or welcome the idea of a hunger games law firm.

I’m sure there are old line professionals that do this for the craft and money stops mattering after a certain level.

But if you think the leadership at Cravath, DPW, S&C, Paul Weiss, whatever other old school firm you have in mind isn’t constantly wrestling with the issue of keeping their best partners without upending their comp system, then you’re dead wrong. People want to be paid what they’re worth and don’t like seeing others make substantially more for doing the same work. That’s just a fact. No non-boomer partner is going to turn down an opportunity to double their pay.

I agree that Kirkland changed the game, I just disagree with the idea that every partner is secretly ok with this extreme of profit above all else and would welcome the opportunity to jump over. Are many? Probably.

[johndhi]

Thanks for sharing this! Tremendously interesting reading. Your decision makes sense to me (in a way) and I hope you're able to collect tons of money before getting out.

I'm curious about this:

• Your average Kirkland share partner is also cash poor. Because he or she is scraping as much of their earnings into co-invest vehicles managed by the firm’s private equity clients, which are long-term investments.

So the partners are investors in their clients' PE funds? That seems kind of weird and like it would create a potential conflict of interest. If your personal wealth is held by a client, doesn't that incentivize you to provide over-aggressive legal representation to them? Or to disfavor the clients who don't hold all your money?

Edit: is this part common with all firms?

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for sharing this! Tremendously interesting reading. Your decision makes sense to me (in a way) and I hope you're able to collect tons of money before getting out.

I'm curious about this:

• Your average Kirkland share partner is also cash poor. Because he or she is scraping as much of their earnings into co-invest vehicles managed by the firm’s private equity clients, which are long-term investments.

So the partners are investors in their clients' PE funds? That seems kind of weird and like it would create a potential conflict of interest. If your personal wealth is held by a client, doesn't that incentivize you to provide over-aggressive legal representation to them? Or to disfavor the clients who don't hold all your money?

Edit: is this part common with all firms?

Other firms have arrangements like this - including Ropes. I don’t know the exact legal maneuvering to make all this kosher but there must be a reliable solution.

We also pioneered the “PC” thing and taxing non-equity partners as K-1s to juice profits. I’m sure they found a way

[Anonymous User]

So what's the point of this thread really? We all saw the PPP numbers but why would any associate/senior associate/counsel/NSP/whatever non-equity position care about that? Sure, there's more money around at an $8m PPP firm than at a $2m PPP firm but whether it's $4m or $6m doesn't really matter until you're bringing in big bucks.

[Anonymous User]

As an ex-KE associate, the Kool-Aid is getting strong over there.They don't care about you, and they never will, so stop licking their boots.

[Anonymous User]

Wow, I could make $10 million a year? I better get studying for Torts next week!

[Anonymous User]

Sounds exhausting. I disagree with your assertion that every firm is secretly the same behind closed doors just because partners from other firms that are now at Kirkland are a certain way (why do you think they went to Kirkland…?). Are most, if not all, partners greedy and selfish? Probably, but they don’t all relish or welcome the idea of a hunger games law firm.

I’m sure there are old line professionals that do this for the craft and money stops mattering after a certain level.

But if you think the leadership at Cravath, DPW, S&C, Paul Weiss, whatever other old school firm you have in mind isn’t constantly wrestling with the issue of keeping their best partners without upending their comp system, then you’re dead wrong. People want to be paid what they’re worth and don’t like seeing others make substantially more for doing the same work. That’s just a fact. No non-boomer partner is going to turn down an opportunity to double their pay.

I agree that Kirkland changed the game, I just disagree with the idea that every partner is secretly ok with this extreme of profit above all else and would welcome the opportunity to jump over. Are many? Probably.

I confirm that's the case with all partners. Those partners that are more humane either end up going inhouse or do not make as much money as other partners do. As someone that recently completely lost any sense of admiration I had in a partner with whom I worked the most in the last two years, I really believe no partner that's doing well in biglaw sense genuinely cares about his/her associates' well-being. No matter for how long you have been doing well and working hard for them, once your usefulness to them decreases a bit, they don't hesitate to shitcan you. Especially true at firms that try to gradually be like K&E.

[Anonymous User]

Are people objecting to this post because they don’t think firms other than Kirkland put maximizing profit first?

Still a matter of degree. Or are you asserting that KE is exactly the same as other firms?

(To be clear, I'm not the OP.) No, I have no experience with KE. I'm honestly curious about the perceived differences between what the OP describes and other firms. I'm just kind of surprised at the implication that other firms would care more about associates than profits.

[Anonymous User]

Posters in this thread are saying Kirkland treats associates like garbage but what exactly are they doing that can’t be found at any other law firm with the same clients?

I understand they SAY things that other firms would not say out loud but are the ACTIONS different?

[Anonymous User]

Posters in this thread are saying Kirkland treats associates like garbage but what exactly are they doing that can’t be found at any other law firm with the same clients?

I understand they SAY things that other firms would not say out loud but are the ACTIONS different?

Just do a search for any Kirkland thread on here, Reddit, fishbowl, etc. It's not hard to find.

[Anonymous User]

Posters in this thread are saying Kirkland treats associates like garbage but what exactly are they doing that can’t be found at any other law firm with the same clients?

I understand they SAY things that other firms would not say out loud but are the ACTIONS different?

Just do a search for any Kirkland thread on here, Reddit, fishbowl, etc. It's not hard to find.

I’ve read threads but nothing is extreme enough or different enough to be memorable.

[Anonymous User]

I confirm that's the case with all partners. Those partners that are more humane either end up going inhouse or do not make as much money as other partners do. As someone that recently completely lost any sense of admiration I had in a partner with whom I worked the most in the last two years, I really believe no partner that's doing well in biglaw sense genuinely cares about his/her associates' well-being.

I'm not sure that's generalizable, though. I imagine that the above is probably true for most (all?) corporate partners are traditional NYC firms, but there are plenty of other partners, either not in NYC and not in corporate law.

My firm's partners tell summers expressly that they (the partners) could make more money elsewhere and that they like the culture and collegiality of the firm (e.g., no origination credit). The summers still come back as associates. Not everything everywhere (all at once?) is about the money. Especially if you are doing more niche work, like regulatory stuff.

[Anonymous User]

How common is it to start as an associate at Kirkland, lateral to another firm, and then lateral back to Kirkland and aim to make partner?

[Anonymous User]

To 1Ls going into recruiting, partners at the white shoes are doing just FINE, if profits and $$$ are something you care about. OP's calculations are just plain wrong for the white shoe firms. $4 million was Cravath's AVERAGE profits per partner. With their 3:1 spread (back in the day), first year partners were also taking home upwards of $2 million (so in line with OP's Kirkland stat for first year share partners), and rainmakers were maxing out closer to $6-7 million. Doesn't seem too shabby. Rainmakers probably make a bit more now that the firm moved away from pure lockstep. I think a lot of reasonable people would much rather prefer the stability and, yes, the extra white shoe preftige over the volatility and what sounds like an insanely stressful and cutthroat share partner experience at Kirkland (this is all based on OP's own description).

I don't know what level of money OP considers to be a lot, but "mid" (non-rainmaker) partners at places like DPW or Simpson are literally taking home $3-4 million these days. And the fact that they have been able to fend off Kirkland means that the modified lockstep system is working (e.g., STB hung on to Bonnie, who would have probably made 8 figures at Kirkland, which means he's probably making close to that at STB now...so what's the point of idolizing Kirkland on pay? Isn't $8-10 million enough? You're not going to be the one making upwards of $15 million anyways lol).

[Anonymous User]

I’m an NSP at Kirkland but grew up at more “white shoe” lockstep firms. Posting this for the benefit of law students as we approach recruiting season.

In 2016, the top end of Cravath’s partner scale was $4 million. As a first year share Kirkland partner today, you’re bringing home a little over $2 million and the “middle class” partners easily make $3-4 million. There’s a meaningful cohort of partners making comfortably above $10 million (closer to $20 than $10)

It’s important to put comp into context. You have to realize that your average Kirkland share partner peaks in his or her 40’s and is making substantially more money than God ever intended law firm partners to make.

It‘s also a far more perilous environment. The second they stop producing, their shares get cut - share allocations are re-evaluated every other year. At the lockstep firms, the rainmakers are in their 50’s. At Kirkland, they’re in their 40’s. It’s incredibly difficult to grind under that system for longer than that. Indeed, the Kirkland pension vests in early 50’s to reflect that reality. Pensions at peer firms vest at 62 to 65.

Your average Kirkland share partner is also cash poor. Because he or she is scraping as much of their earnings into co-invest vehicles managed by the firm’s private equity clients, which are long-term investments.

The firm is no longer run by Kirkland partners. The firm committee is populated by powerful partners from the exact firms that everyone believes have better cultures - Cravath, Simpson, Sidley, Weil, etc. But these are the partners that decided money was more important.

So net it out. You have a generation of young overworked partners living in constant fear of share cuts but also have the chance to make more money than any lawyer could have imagined. They’re also cash poor so they don’t “feel” rich on a day-to-day basis.

The ONLY THING these partners care about is maximizing their comp during their “peak” window. They don’t care about the firm, the associates, or their partners. They care about their families and justifying years of toil.

The crazy thing is that this is actually the most refreshing firm I’ve ever worked that. Because they own it. They are honest with themselves and each other about what matters. So if you’re a rockstar associate or NSP in a hot practice group, they will very explicit in showing that they value you. If the economy takes a turn for the worse and the firm does poorly - fuck you. Remember it’s possible for Kirkland to have a record year but still be tightening the belt. Because they’re not focused on the firm. They’re focused on continued profit growth.

Every major firm now thinks this way - whether they admit it or not. But at least Kirkland is transparent about it. The lockstep firms still cling to the bullshit pageantry, which is entirely designed to shame associates into killing themselves in exchange for same money and zero transparency about your partner prospects.

Pick your poison. And you should expect to lateral at least once.

Kirkland is the best place to be a rainmaking partner, no doubt. But the old firms (at least the tippy top ones) are still the best place for Associate training (unless you can somehow luck into a top group and have it stay a top group for 8 years at Kirkland). Also, I think it's a bit misleading to say all firms are the same, and only Kirkland is honest about it. The older firms are better at matters that require excellence across the board. When the talent is constantly following the money (Kirkland), your side-groups get neglected during quiet periods. At the old firms, the groups support each other during downtimes. I think the net result is that Kirkland does a lot of work that is a bit less complex (in terms of the variety of groups), but they do it really really well. I do think I'd relate more to a Kirkland partner, though. They want to get in, make money, and get out. It's more efficient and in some ways, more humane. The old firms just bleed you dry. And you never really own a client. It's always the Firm's client. Also, some businesses are so complicated that you need an old firm that can build up institutional knowledge. Morgan Stanley's incorporation documents are at Davis Polk. Cravath knows Time Warner better than anyone else alive. However, some of this might bleed over into Kirkland.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

https://www.choosingtherapy.com/signs-of-a-sociopath/

OP would you mind breaking down for the forum?

Thx

Sent from my iPhone