I don't see what this has to do with Latham. Please moderate.

latham sucks as well

By "associates not on track to make partner" do you mean 99% of them?

I'd still accept a Kirkland offer. Too bad they bailed on OCI.

Indiana 2L

Why is this news? Kirkland has been ditching partners and associates now for awhile. It was a Chicago firm that tried to become a national firm for high end work, but lost that game after the boom ended, and is now returning to its roots as another Chicago firm that has hit hard times.

1st years not on track to make partner? Were they staff attys?

Kirkland has a long and storied history of misleading its associates and Non-Share Partners into believing they have a good shot at "getting shares", and then pulling the rug out at the last minute after they have invested many long years at the firm.

The once 10-year share partnership track became 11, then 12, and then...goodbye. Meanwhile, K&E was billing those people out at exorbitant rates and making millions.

Tired of reading about BigLaw layoffs. But keep it coming. Yes, I'm going to let BigLaw fuck me till I love it.

--Still unemployed with no prospects

I'm not so sure the reports about first year corporate layoffs in New York are accurate. Kirkland's NY office had a small number of first year corporate associates, and each of them is fine as far as I can tell.

At any rate, these layoffs are attrition layoffs. By that term, I don't mean to say that this is the "normal" number of associates that would be let go as a result of performance. As other posters in other stories have noted from time to time, in a normal market, X number of associates would have left the firm. However, due to market conditions, people weren't leaving so they effectively had to "push" people out. It's a shitty situation for all involved :(

Suggestion: Create two ATL sites. One for the big boys and another - Junior ATL - for small firms in small cities. Hate to sound like a snob, but I don't come to this site for stories about some firm I've never heard of. The new site could be called Below the Law or Below Above the Law.

#8 - What have you been smoking? I think it's pretty common knowledge that it's f*cking damn near impossible to make shares here. Non-share, not so difficult - just stick around for about 6 years and don't royally f*ck anything up. But shares??? That's a whole different ballgame. Remember that for every new share, everyone else has to decrease their share of the pie. Few folks would be game to do that for just anyone unless you can make it rain...

I'm thinking if you are let go you are not on the partnership track. Great for them to clarify that.

If those 1st-year associates had been deferred, they wouldn't have been laid off . . . yet.

12 of around 80 (not sure of the exact number) of first years in Chicago? I find that really, really hard to believe.

Kirkland has had a different approach for a while: pay above market, work you to death, if you are decent and the business case is there, you make income (non-share) partner after about 6-7 years, and then you make really pretty damn good money for up to 5 years more. It is quite hard to make equity (share) partner after that, and there are very few - fewer than 180, I think.

It is too bad that people didn't realize that was how it worked, but it shouldn't surprise people at all that they are being shown the door, even as first years, if the work is not there, their work is not stellar or just because the business case requires it.

I haven't been pleased getting paid less at other firms than I would have been paid at Kirkland, but I understood the tradeoff. I am sympathetic to those laid off at Kirkland, but the name of the game at Kirkland is $$$ above all else. If you were there and didn't realize that, then you are not very aware of your surroundings. No hard feelings, especially for first years, but you should have realized what you were getting into. It was clear to Biglaw aspirees when I was in law school that that was how Kirkland rolled.

Clients don't want to pay for a bunch of first years doing document review.

First to say Kirkland & ELIE's

4 - How true!

"It’s hard to know what kind of performance review will get you canned after just a few months at the firm."

You must not have worked in BIGLAW long enough, Elie.

The ship be sinking...

There is no ship!

At this point, aren't some 1st years fair game?

How you like me now?

This is a wonderful way to celebrate Labor Day week. It's great fun to read about worthless, spoiled, entitled little lawshits losing their jobs. If you ain't worth spit, why get paid for simply showing up and looking at a bunch of stupid documents. The long goodbye is here for many more to come.

Soft IP is not IP. I hope this helps.

At least the time of the big lay-offs seems to be over. 10 here, 10 there, 20 there for another half year maybe and then we should be back to normal....I hope...

Fired first years were there more than " a few months." Kirkland did not defer last year, right? So they were there 12 months.

Last hired, first fired. Plus, 1st years usually have the least skills and thus do not perform as well as seconds and thirds or fourths. Is this because they're first years? Yeah, duh. But they still suck at being lawyers in their first several months of being a lawyer. Why protect the short tiimers? They can just be replaced by new first years next year. Am I missing something?

Countdown to round 4 at Latham...

11 - Quit flogging that pony. Never gonna run.

Has Kirkland updated their website and removed these people?

11, you are an idiot. You seriously have never heard of Kirkland? Wow. Nice to know the quality of lawyer that one gets on the east coast if you have never even heard of a major player in the legal market.

Next you will be asking what this "court of equity" is that people have been talking about. The practice has evolved douche. Get with the times.

11, you are an idiot. You seriously have never heard of Kirkland? Wow. Nice to know the quality of lawyer that one gets on the east coast if you have never even heard of a major player in the legal market.

Next you will be asking what this "court of equity" is that people have been talking about. The practice has evolved douche. Get with the times.

33, 34

I think 11 was being sarcastic. Stop being so sensitive.

I've always heard that Kirkland attorneys were spineless, but never believed it. But, given how personal they take every negative comment about their firm (sarcastic or not), I'm starting to change my mind.

33/34, honestly, I was a bit confused. I knew about "Kirkland" the furniture store: http://www.kirklands.com/

I was unaware that they had branched out and created a spinoff law firm. Now I know.

-- 11.

don't feed the trolls 33

35,

Fair. And well played by 11. I'm not even a Kirkland attorney but I am so sick of the east coast douchebaggary on this site my immediate reaction is to assume he's not joking. I take it there was a run of this joke that I missed at some point.

33/34

18 - wonder why you are the first? b/c Kirkland & Ellie's makes absolutely zero sense

Kirkland does it for the lulz

I hear that there's a new Obama program that will allow each US Attorney office to hire one additional AUSA, with all new hires to be completed within the next 6 months. The only hitch is that you have to fit within the hiring profiles, which can be tough for some folks to meet. Jump on it.

41 is full of it. I just called and was told no such program exists.

Elie,
Please clarify the post.

"Soft IP" = History major doing trademark work. That's not really IP work.

I was told that a mormon equity partner made sure that no BYU grads were laid-off. Can anyone confirm?

43, do you really think Elie can clarify anything? That would require investigation of the facts.

Curious to know if the layoffs were soft IP or hard (real) IP. Cause every firm I know that does hard IP is still hiring. Even Orrick is quietly interviewing people for a handful of hard IP spots.

Isn't Kirkland a line of food products at Costco?

46, if you read above you'll see that it was soft IP.

11 - working at a big firm hardly makes you a "big boy". The Biglaw model is to target grads that are smart but risk-averse, pay them a good entry-level salary, and then abuse them while billing them out at several times their salary. Then after 4-5 years associates realize that have relatively few transferable skills, no shot at partner, and exit opportunities that pay less than than what they currently make. Enjoy your big salary, big boy. It's the most you're ever going to make.

-"small boy" making $500k at his own firm and answering to nobody, except some very happy clients

@47 - my trash bags are made by Kirkland.

For the next 12 to 24 months in particular, law firms are going to do whatever is necessary to preserve profitability. Without it, they can't recruit lateral partners with books and they can't grow -- this is the law of gravity in BigLaw. By definition, there are very few bigtime rainmakers and every firm wants them which means firms must be willing to pay a premium. Thus, every firm must locate/create resources (ie cash) which is not as hard to do in a growing ecnomony but hard to do in a shrinking one like now.

Each firm will do different things but all amount to the same. That is, cust cost during lean times. Kirkland is a major private equity shop and there are not that many deals going on because there are very few banks willing to provide the leverage. It doesn't help that government regulators are highly wary of private equity firms right now (eg those firms looking to acquire distressed banks with government guarantee supporting them).

Bottom line, whether a firm fires 20 associates who just started or choose to hire 20 less summer associates, it's really 6 of one and half dozen of another. They both suggest a very grim outlook for the next couple of years. Just a terrible time to be in law school or a junior associate unfortunately.

The key is to take a long term outlook and build the skills and network that will be valuable. It's hard to say don't worry about money when you have $150k in debt but certainly don't make an employment decision based on $10k but rather on which opportunity provides you the best platform to take advantage when things do turn around.

Does anyone know about Kirkland LA?

Oh, and the Costco jokes were never funny. They probably will never be funny.

#10 is a Kirkland employee -- the internet-trolling partner assigned to contradict any bad news that comes up -- she works on the 37th floor

44 - Yes, it's true.

44 and 54 - You are obviously both (1) ignorant of the power structures that exist inside K&E and (2) retarded consumers of conspiracy theories.

#55. I heard the same thing as 44 and 54. Can you verify any BYU grad that was laid-off (with proof)?

44, 54: Doofuses. Even if no BYU law grad was laid off, doesn't prove a conspiracy to keep them.

56 - Whether any BYU grad was laid off is a very different question from whether a mormon partner made sure no BYU grads were laid off. I don't know whether that firm laid off any BYU grads or not. But the notion that a mormon partner at K&E would or even could assure that decisions were made on that basis is ... well, fodder for gullible conspiracy theorists.

58 - Mitt Romney got a BYU grad, that was found to plagiarize a law review article, a position at a top Boston law firm. I wouldn't put a limit on a mormons action to protect/advance one of their own.

The BYU thing could be an unfounded rumour but its one of the more specific ones I've heard. If anyone is aware of it they should email ATL instead of just commenting here.

The rumor is somewhere between 35 and 45 Chicago associates were laid off last week. If anyone has a hard number, please post it.

59 - That's your idea of solid reasoning? That's your basis for crediting tentative hearsay that explicitly asks whether anyone can confirm (44)? What law firm, if any, are you with? What law school did/do you go to? Remind me never to trust work from that firm or students from that school.

(And, yes, I do see that my conclusion over-generalizes. Which is part of the point, isn't it?)

62 -- You forgot to mention that 59 also gets bonus points for religious bigotry. Next he'll be talking about who REALLY runs the banking system.

#59 - This is true. He was the EIC of the BYU Law Review and was expelled for plagiarism.

#59/64 - How could all those BYU Mormons miss the chance to advance interests of one of their own by declining to expel him?

Solid advice #51. Too bad it's getting drowned out by all the other "noise" in here.

64 - have you noticed that he even lists being EIC on his firm profile. However, there is no mention of him on the BYU Law Review website as being EIC. BYU even still lists his article, but they disabled the hyperlink. I tried to pull the article up in Wexis, but it doesn't exist. I don't recall BYU ever posting a retraction for the article, but it seems that they quietly deleted the article from multiple sources.

#65 - This is just silly.

65 - perhaps because the author whose piece was plagiarized (who wasn't a mormon) was demanding blood. Let's see, after being expelled. Worked for Mitt Romney's campaign. Got a BYU degree after attending classes at another law school. Got a job from a firm that was firing associates due to his Mitt Romney connections. Yes, his fellow mormons sure punished him for his plagiarism.

I am a non-mormon that graduated from BYU Law. Sure enough, we had firms that would have never recruited at BYU but did anyways due to a partner being a mormon. However, what I have found out what holds true more often than not is that BYU grads only care about themselves. Sounds like every other school.

Not surprising. Irish Catholics get protected/promoted in D.C. Just a fact. I think that's just something one lives with if he chooses K&E.

Mitt Romney is a class act.

I hope I am mistaken (because I know a lot of good people at Kirkland), but the layoffs must have been pretty significant at Kirkland, and Chicago in particular.

The post was put up over 4 hours ago, and there has been very little defense of Kirkland from associates, i.e., the layoffs were pretty much on par with normal attrition, ATL is run by Kirkland haters, etc. This is pretty inconsistent with previous post regarding Kirkland.

Just a guess, but the lack of a virgorous defense from Kirkland people can't be a good sign.

Damn, it is surprising to see K&E lay off first years- conventional wisdom is they're always safe there. I was laid off from a smaller biglaw firm and kept thinking maybe I'd have been safe if I had the chops to get hired at Kirkland- guess nobody is truly safe.

What's really sad is that Kirkland isn't even hurting. The greedy partners running the show are worried that they might not make MORE money this year than they did last year. Seriously. Matching the most profitable year in the firm's history is unacceptable; every year has to be MORE profitable than the last. They are perfectly willing to destroy people's lives under the guise of the bad economy when in fact they're slashing the payroll just because they CAN, not because they NEED to do so.

73, fwiw, I emailed tips with more details and corrections of some of his details but he doesn't seem to care to either respond or post an update.

Guess I should have just emailed Lat directly.

74, yeah, it sucks. But they did wait until essentially a year had passed. Everyone had started by the end of September 2008 and layoffs didn't happen until the beginning of September 2009. Still sucks, still in the first year, but at least I think they have somewhat of an idea of who they want and don't.

76- at least if they get the usual severance/notice they can put a year on their resume- better than nothing I guess. Anyway there ain't nothing out there.

76- at least if they get the usual severance/notice they can put a year on their resume- better than nothing I guess. Anyway there ain't nothing out there.

Supposedly, the new headquarters building is full of problems. More rent money than the old Aon space. Business is down - just like other firms. Kirkland isn't immune to economic downturns.

Kirkland's attitude toward "soft IP" is weird. They alternately treat those who do it like crap, but then pay millions to hire Dale Cendali and several other partners from O'Melveny to do.....soft IP.

79, if Kirkland's Chicago office is "full of problems," all they need to do is cut their "managerial" staff by a 100 or so bodies (that would still leave a few hundred on deck, no?) and deep-six the no-business-having share partners. Paying the rainmakers' lapdogs $1 million-plus every year for them to bring in zero business doesn't seem like a sustainable business model, does it?

52: Yes, what's your specific question?

They cut a lot of "managerial" staff before they moved in April.

If Bob Dell isn't laying people off without cause then he's just not happy

Gee -- thanks 51, what a thoughtful and generous comment. Do you have any more kernels of wisdom you would be willing to share with us poor ignorant masses?

The "million dollar lapdogs" are safer than the junior associates because (at least in the eyes of the rainmakers making the firing / retention decisions) the lapdogs are unique and over a decade or more have proven their ability to effectively run the rainmakers' cases to positive results which then generate more rain. Quarter million dollar junior associates, however, are entirely fungible. They grow on trees in the forest of the top twenty law schools (+ BYU and Notre Dame and Pepperdine, of course) and can always be replaced. It is way easier and much less disruptive for a rainmaker to find new junior associates than to find a new million dollar lapdog.

74 -- where have you been the last year? Idiotic statement.

The IP dept at K&E NY is a sweat shop.

Kirkland no offered a bunch of summers in a variety of offices. No more than 70% of corporate summers in Chicago got offers.

86 actually knows what he is talking about, as opposed to the other cretins here. K&E is full of non-business producing partners who cannot move elsewhere. They are bound with gold handcuffs and their punishment is that they have to work at K&E for their whole careers, since they have no mobility. It is hard to move, when you are making $1 m plus with no portable busines. The most any other firm will pay you is $400k with no book.

Not buying it, 86. At some point a partner without business (PWB) just becomes an overpaid senior associate. There is a learning curve, you know. Firms could halve the salaries of the PWBs and the PWBs still couldn't leave because who would hire someone 20+ years out of law school without a book?

Just to point out that a BYU non-mormon grad from 2007 did not write any of these comments. Classmates, please stop calling me.

I heard 44 is an OU graduate. Can anyone confirm?

Same thing happening at Cravath and S&C. Where's the news on that?

Same thing happening at Cravath and S&C. Where's the news on that?

86, 90, 91, I was at K&E for almost eight years. Those million dollar lap-dogs (some are friends of mine) would stay at K&E for 600K, because they know and have admitted to me that they can't get employment elsewhere for more than 450-500K with thier non-existent books of business. They are overpaid by any objective measure. The usual criteria for the windfall partner draw is a taste for ass-kissing and not a unworldly high skill set. They can be easily replaced for 600K.
K&E is a good firm in many respects, but it is risky to stick around b/c its more model is flawed than many others. I am big firm partner who left K&E in time to develop my own biz (largely based on K&E contacts) before it was too late to be mobile.

86/90/91/96 - I have a hard time believing that the management at K&E is paying people $1 million when their market value is half that amount. Either they're worth something closer to $1 million or, more likely, they're not being paid $1 million. How do you know what these "lapdogs" are being paid anyway? I'm surprised such overpaid people would be so vocal about what they make.

Greg Metz from Kirkland's Chicago office just left to go to Ropes & Gray. What is he like?

97 = no clue about K&E.

-not 96

97 - it's just the way the share system works. AFAIK there's a minimum number of shares you can get each year.

What's up with all the venom directed to K&E? Its business model depends to a large degree on voluntary attrition. When that doesn't occur, you have two choices: (1) revoke offers to hapless 3Ls who have zero chance of finding another job; or (2) force attrition among those who had the opportunity to leave (and didn't). K&E chose the latter, which seems like the more decent option.

Junior associates at K&E and a lot of similarly situated firms have collected 160k salaries for the past year. During that time, they enjoyed long lunches, a 9-5 schedule, and long workouts at the gym. But the party had to end at some point.

I'm sure that a few people really did get screwed over in the layoff process. But for the rest, at least you have nice tans from your weekends at the beach and mid-day trips to the pool. K&E associates of summers past did not enjoy such luxuries.

why isn't above the law writing about the lay offs at the top nyc firms? why does rodge tell his associates at his weekly luncheons that the firm is in fact firing people? apparently he claims that the 40+ associates who have left didn't want to be there to begin with. wait--aren't we in a recession and we're all clinging on to jobs? and how about debevoise sacking people and *at least* giving them 9 months pay, which is at least better than s&c. why is above the law not reporting on this....

why isn't above the law writing about the lay offs at the top nyc firms? why does rodge tell his associates at his weekly luncheons that the firm is in fact firing people? apparently he claims that the 40+ associates who have left didn't want to be there to begin with. wait--aren't we in a recession and we're all clinging on to jobs? and how about debevoise sacking people and *at least* giving them 9 months pay, which is at least better than s&c. why is above the law not reporting on this....

The underlying problem is that K&E's business model is largely premised on maintaining low long-term attrition fostered by partners essentially overestimating NSP's chances at "making equity" during the review process.

Many a gullible NSP has gotten stuck listening to this feedback, then staying at the firm and making below market income relative to their experience level, in the foolish belief that the brass ring is only a year (or two) away. When it doesn't materialize, the firm suddenly blames the individual, and lets them go elsewhere.

Voila, millions made for K&E and another pissed off NSP with no portable business goes on the market after 13 or 14 years at the firm. It has happened more than once. Ask around.

why isn't above the law writing about the lay offs at the top nyc firms? why does rodge tell his associates at his weekly luncheons that the firm is in fact firing people? apparently he claims that the 40+ associates who have left didn't want to be there to begin with. wait--aren't we in a recession and we're all clinging on to jobs? or how s&c forced its firm to sign confi agreements. and how about debevoise sacking people and *at least* giving them 9 months pay, which is at least better than s&c. why is above the law not reporting on this....

Don't know about transactional/corporate practice, but in litigation, you can't make it rain unless you actually try cases. It's only by winning cases in court that additional clients come knocking for your services... but, in biglaw and at K&E, the prospects of actually trying a case is zero unless you've done it a dozen times already. The nature of litigation at shops like K&E and other biglaw is that clients do not want someone green trying their case since stakes are always in the multi-million dollar range and the cost to the court steps is always in the millions. Hence, clients demand veteran trial attorneys (i.e., the rainmakers) to actually try their case in court. So, coming up in biglaw such as K&E, you have nearly no chance of gaining real life trial experience that will ultimately make you a rain maker... instead you learn to develop skills to manage a case and tee it up for the rainmaker to take over once it actually reaches the court steps. In fact, I don't know of any rainmakers at K&E that was home grown... all have come as laterals where they gained trail experience either in government or in smaller shops where stakes were smaller and smaller clients gave them a chance to try cases... So, it's not surprising that many NSPs at K&E don't make shares. If you have limited shares to allocate, will you give it to some home grown NSP that has no trial experience and therefore no chance of making it rain in the future.. or will you give shares to a lateral who gained actual trial experience elsewhere and therefore has a good prospect of making it rain in the future? The answer is obvious. Being NSP or SP w/ no business is okay if you don't want to be in court, enjoy working with the rainmakers that rely on you to manage their cases, and can be satisfied with the dough you rake in for not being rainmaker yourself. Of course, you have to be comfortable with the fact that your rainmakers can always starve you out, leave for another firm, retire, etc.. but, then again, there's always a lot of things out of your control and everyone has a boss... whether it be your rainmaking partner, client, shareholder, etc.

for the reasons stated by 106, when NSPs don't make shares, I don't understand why they didn't see it coming.. it's silly for a litigator to think they should make shares when they've never won a trial through their court performance... those folks are too timid or too comfortable to take a hit in their pay and get actual trial court experience where they can find it.. usually outside of biglaw

97: Anyone with any insight about K&E at all knows that junior equity partners (i.e., "million dollar lapdogs") are pulling in over seven figures. The rainmakers may view the lapdogs as "worth" a million dollars because (a) each rainmaker trusts his or her own particular lapdogs to run their cases better than anyone else, and/or (b) the lapdogs serve as living examples of the brass rings for the rest of the damned to chase, ultimately resulting in a net profit for the firm -- see post 104. K&E has high PPP; one might question the moral character of the firm leadership but it seems doubtful that one can question whether or not the firm leadership knows how to make money. So long as the lapdogs remain within the K&E system they may well be "worth" a million dollars.

There's so much misinformation here. Where to begin.

It was definitely far more than 12. Probably more than 5%, probably closer to 10% of associates.

The layoffs started earlier in the week than Friday; they weren't "buried" over the long weekend.

They weren't fired "just months" after starting; they had a full year (for whatever you think that's worth).

First years were not "targeted." Were they hit? Yes. But, so far, I haven't heard of a single first-year who was laid off that's remotely surprising. They range from the "clueless from their summer associate days," to the "project-to-project where no partner could stand working with them," to "stopped showing up at the office," to "didn't bill, didn't go to restructuring for work, didn't even try pro bono." Maybe I'm missing some gem who was let go for the wrong reasons. Haven't heard it yet.

Is it harsh? Yeah, I guess it is. But what else is the firm supposed to do? Continue to hold their hand and hope that maybe they'll become bearable, competent, or an initiative-taker? Another year won't change that. It's just that in a good economy, the firm gave people a longer leash.

As an aside, is money the bottom line? Of course. But these were truly performance-based, albeit heavy-handed and performance-based. And they were definitely an attempt to keep PPP, among other things, up.

Targeted departments included "soft" IP (which isn't IP anyway, and the people going into it should know that when there's real work, it goes to "hard" IP people first), and corporate (which has been absolutely dead, and anyone with any sense was trying to cycle into restructuring).

Most people were given a few months' notice. The negative spin is so that they don't disappear from the Web site at once but trickle away. The positive spin is that the firm is paying them for a few months to shop resumes and tell people that they're still gainfully employed at Kirkland without the stigma (yet) of saying that they were let go. Whatever you want you can believe.

In any case, really rough for everyone, 1st year or not, who was laid off, and a terrible time. But at the same time, stop bitching and pick yourself up.

For all the commenters: I have no idea about a bunch of the rumors, conspiracy theories, or whatever else is in this thread. I've just addressed a couple of things that I know (in my extremely limited knowledge). Maybe it'll help.

Agree mostly with the Mayor. They make a lot of dinero, so hard to argue with the model. That said, at least in NY, no one I've talked to understands where they are getting litigation work from at this point. Certainly the new equity partners (and they've actually made a bunch of them for no apparent reason) don't have much trial cred in the in-house community. Very smart people though, so who am I to doubt?

106: You're an idiot. I'm pretty sure that David Bernick, Bob Krupka, Jeff Davidson, and Rick Godfrey have been at K&E for their entire careers. Davidson is older now, but the other three generate significant business. And you're making some very broad generalizations about trial experience. In the right spots, you can get quite a bit of it.

96: where are you now, geographic location please.

101 - every time a firm lays off people the trash starts flying on this website. The venom comes from the youngsters who can't get their entitled heads around the law firm business model that sheds dead weight in a downturn just like every other business.

But don't worry, K&E shot up in the "prestige" rankings of Vault while so many others fell. So you'll have a lot of prestige on your resume while you're hitting the streets for nonexistent jobs.

There is alot of truth to what 106 says about young litigators needing trial experience to get clients.

But, to be fair, K&E is actually relatively good at giving younger partners and even associates opportunities to do work in court, as compared to many other large firms.

111 - You're right about their tenure. But I think you would agree that K&E was a very different firm when they joined. Weren't Krupka and Streff the first two guys in the IP group? Emily Nicklin is fond of telling the story about how she second chaired a trial as a young associate. I guess it was supposed to motivate us or something. But does anyone seriously think those opportunities are available now?

Sure, you can get a bit of trial experience at K&E. But will it be enough to be first chairing trials and getting clients of your own? If the client always wants to bring in a Krupka or Davidson for trial - are they really *your* client? (in the portable business sense)

- not 106

114 - How is K&E different from any other BigLaw firm in that regard, though?

114 - Yes on Krupka and Streff. More generally, I suspect those opportunities still exist in spots, although they are certainly rarer now. The tricky part of it is that the execution side of the job (which is what impresses the share partners internally) is wildly different from the sales side of the job (which creates rain). To do really well, you've got to have both skills -- which is a hard thing to do. I've absolutely seen junior people who have done well on something get their own cases from clients, but the situation has to line up just right.

Emily Nicklin is fond of telling many stories, most of which are bitter and amusing at the same time.

-111

98 - Very smart and hard working lawyer, genuinely decent person, unfailingly courteous. Good hire by Ropes, I'm sorry he has left.

114 - you are totally right about execution vs. sales.

at least half the lawyers out there in the world suck at being lawyers, but are phenomenal at self promotion

i meant 116, not 114

I have known some very, VERY good young lawyers at K&E over the years who left the firm because they simply could not build independent books of business to justify shares. The firm has knowingly let some amazing talent fly out the door over the years as a result.

110, the new partners are nonshare partners. The firm hasn't made new share partners yet. Look for any number of NSPs to be given their walking papers after they are officially told they've hit the end of the road.

106 is a moron. In addition to Bernick, Streff, Krupka, Davidson and Nicklin, there is an entire group of young guns at Kirkland who have come up the ranks and are now high powered, in demand partners. You have Gene Assaf and Greg LoCascio in DC and Mark Pals in Chicago just to name a few. They are brilliant legal minds (Mark Pals in particular), they have paid their dues, clients noticed and thus, they have many high profile wins as first chair trial attorneys.

I told Kirkland to fire all those people cause I am an asshole.

-Dave Gordon

122 - there's still something to be said for joining when a practice group is small. Mark Pals joined when the IP department measure in the teens. Not sure about the other two, but they also seem to do some IP so it may be the same story. You'd be much better off citing some pure Litigation partners.

Still, I do believe it will be possible to make shares and be a rainmaker rising through the ranks. But it certainly seems a harder row to hoe now.

124 - you want general litigation names, here are some: Yosef Riemer (K&E NY), Jim Basile (K&E SF), Dan Attridge (K&E DC), Mark Kovner (K&E DC), Leslie Smith (K&E Chi), Brian Sieve (K&E Chi). There are many, many more examples of successful first chair trial attorneys who rose through the Kirkland ranks. It is very true that Kirkland has let some very talented and bright attorneys slip through their fingers but it is possible to succeed at Kirkland. Anyone who says otherwise wasn't smart enough to get an offer from Kirkland in the first place.

125 - Thanks. Although if you had read carefully, you'd have noticed that I wasn't asking for general litigation names. I just pointed out that they would support your position better :)

But the main reason I posted was to show off my proper usage of "row to hoe" - something that seems to be a lost art.

- 124

124 - you are right about those folks. i agree that there were some very talented and extremely bright attorneys who K&E lost, some from the NY office's IP group in particular, who i recall being particularly good

81: They cut out "managerial" in a big way. The Chief Human Resource Officer left. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS150160+09-Sep-2009+PRN20090909

128: Don't know if Beu was cut or if he left on his own. Even if we assume that Beu joined Morse-Quinn in being kicked to the curb, that still leaves a cast of hundreds. In every administrative department within K&E there are several people holding the exact same positions. They all receive new titles and higher salaries every year or two. The level of redundancy is breathtaking. If the share partners truly wanted to save some money, it might be in their best interests to rid themselves of the spacetakers rather than people who actually contribute to the success of the firm. Just my opinion, but it is the correct one.

Interesting, 81. Beu was the second highest ranking administrative person in the firm, yet he only holds an undergrad degree from a crappy university (Valparaiso, really?). What does that tell you about the quality of the staff? Jesus, I know several K&E legal assistants and secretaries who either hold master's degrees or at least undergrad degrees from far more prestigious schools.

130: Quality of an undergrad degree is an irrelevancy. I don't know the circumstances under which Beu left, but I do know he was good while he was there.

I'll also note that K&E's cost control in certain areas, e.g. recruiting, is very poor.

Does anyone know if K&E still has free bagels in the morning?

132, free bagels on Mondays and Wednesdays, free cereal (and sometimes yogurt) on Tuesdays and Thursdays and free sweet rolls on Fridays. They still provide free fruit every day.

Beu had a few nasty lawsuits filed against K&E on his watch. Still going on.

131, what did Beu do that made you think he was good? Or, more to the point, what did he do in general? He sure kept a low profile. For a guy with a top job, he was The Invisible Man.

122 = Mark Pals.

All the people on this board with stupid speculation clearly haven't worked at K&E. Which is better for them than they realize.

But I haven't read anything on here that's accurate.

135: Beu was at least facially willing to take a relatively harder line against stupid litigants suing the firm on meritless claims, and sympathized with thematic opposition to stupid PC rules. By way of example, an HR lawyer came in and told one of the offices that it would be inappropriate for a male partner to take a female associate to lunch alone. Because of that rule, it would also be inappropriate for a male partner to take a male associate to lunch alone. Beu agreed that these rules were not intelligent.

To your second point, I agree. I found most firm administration (including Beu) to be pretty much invisible. The firm isn't really run by adminstrators and I rather doubt it ever will be.

136: Heh, you're wrong.

131

137 - I thought the firm was run by the Executive Director. Nobody knows who is the Managing Partner. Much different from other firms.

138:

Nope. Tom Yannucci is the titular head of the firm, with most management issues being decided by the Firm Committee, which consists of fifteen lawyers. That committee delegates various issues to other committees, including the Administrative Committee; I suspect without knowing for a fact that Beu reported up through the AC.

137/131

I guess Beu is more comfortable with the Arthur Andersen alumni group. He spent most of his professional life at Andersen. Not a bad guy - walked into a firm run by a bunch of former secretaries and clerical types.

Were laid-off associates "dead weight" when at their former firms?

The firm did not let associates go that "were not on partner track." That is patently ridiculous. The firm let people go who were not on track for success at the firm.

That could be for many reasons. Not all necessarily the fault of the attorney at all. Some, in some departments, were let go because their simply was not enough work and they were fine attorneys but not the top performers in the group.

Management took a particularly hard stance on those who were not particularly busy but turned down work anyway.

I will say there is a lack of transparency in the manner of the layoffs that is troubling. But nothing was at random. A firm announcement would have been appropriate or some kind of global firm statement. Many assciates found out from this website.

Kirkland is still top heavy in Administration. Beu should have taken all of the Andersen people with him that he brought in while at Kirkland. Most have no idea what goes on in a law firm.

Kirkland is still top heavy in Administration. Beu should have taken all of the Andersen people with him that he brought in while at Kirkland. Most have no idea what goes on in a law firm.