Practically Invisible: Kirkland & Ellis' New Black Partners
The law firm made a jaw-dropping number of partners this year—141 to be exact. But here's the flip side: Only three black lawyers appeared among that sea of faces.
October 09, 2019 at 02:02 PM
4 minute read
Friendly advice to law firms announcing new partners: Don't put up photos of your latest elevations unless there's a modicum of diversity among those happy faces.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind Wharton & Garrison learned that lesson the hard way earlier this year. After publishing photos of its fresh batch of partners—11 men and one woman (all white)—the firm got slammed for its super-Caucasian, male class.
Kirkland & Ellis is falling into the same trap. As you probably know, Kirkland made a jaw-dropping number of partners this year—141 to be exact. But here's the flip side: Only three black lawyers appeared among that sea of faces. (I'm basing this on appearance, as Kirkland has not responded to my request for comment.) As for women and Asians, the firm is doing better: I counted 46 women and about a dozen or so Asians, though that included those in its Asia offices.
But let's get back to the issue of black partners, because that's where many firms have trouble. While making very few or even zero black partners in a given year might be explainable when the partnership class is quite small (arguably, the situation with Paul Weiss), it's troubling when the class is large.
As I've reported, black lawyers seem to be lagging behind in the partnership race this year. And that's particularly notable at firms with relatively big partnership classes, such as White & Case (41 new partners) and Jones Day (46 new partners), where there were no new black partners at all.
That said, no firm compares with Kirkland for the scale of its partnership class. So, yes, I find it shocking that only three black lawyers made the cut out of a pool of 141 new partners in a firm with 2,300 lawyers.
What that means is that black lawyers aren't even making it to starting gate, even though the gate is wide. Under Kirkland's system, junior partners only get the privilege of auditioning for equity status. As my colleague Patrick Smith notes in his recent article about Kirkland's new partners, historically, only about 20% of its income partners eventually became equity partners after a four-year tryout period.
Which raises these questions: How daunting are the odds for black lawyers to attain equity? And how many black partners at Kirkland have equity at all?
We don't know the answer and Kirkland isn't saying. (Law.com's Dylan Jackson reports that other Am Law 100 firms—King & Spalding; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner; and Sidley Austin—also refuse to break down equity versus nonequity partners in their survey responses.)
But keep this in mind: Minorities struggle mightily to get out of the income partner ranks. According to Jackson, "minority lawyers disproportionately occupy the nonequity partnership tier of the nation's largest-grossing law firms compared to their white colleagues."
Is Kirkland at the bottom of the diversity ranking? Actually, not. It ranked 45th on ALM's diversity scorecard this year, up from 57 in 2018. Black lawyers comprised 1.6% of all partners and 2.8% of all lawyers, while Asian Americans made up 7.4% partners and 10.6% of all lawyers. For Hispanics, the breakdown was 3.2% partners and 4.4% lawyers.
Though Kirkland is certainly not alone (there are plenty of Am Law 100 firms with 1% or fewer black partners), that 1.6% figure for black partners is worrisome, considering that it's a mega firm with 2,300 lawyers that generated revenue of over $3.7 billion last year. This is no litigation boutique; rather, it's a big business with a high profile. And as such, we expect it to do better.
It's difficult to say why it's so tough for black lawyers to become partners—contract or equity—at Kirkland. I have to assume that its up-or-out system complicates diversifying the partnership ranks. If a firm is so focused on the bottom line, which is true for many firms these days, how does something as complicated and nebulous as diversity compete for priority?
It's a brutal process all around. For anyone aspiring to equity status, it's bound to be a long, long climb. For black lawyers, it must seem damn impossible.
Related posts: But Where Are the Black Partners?; The Unicorn Watch; Unicorn Watch-Part 2.
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs Big Law Walks a Tightrope, Herbert Smith Freehills Refuses to Lose Its Footing
8 minute readHoly Grail: Can Changing Big Law Recruiting, Hiring and Training Lead to Greater Retention?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250