According to an interesting article by Rachel Moloney in The Lawyer, some former Kirkland & Ellis partners are taking associate positions at other firms, calling into question the "partner" title.
One of the claims I've often heard from those aiming at partnership is that having the title "partner" is the game changer for BD and building their practice. There is truth in this, but clearly it's more nuanced than that - as those non-equity partners from Kirkland taking up non-partner roles in other firms can attest.
The partner title does bring with it its own brand, and that brand will mean different things in different firms, and different things in different practice areas. I've often noted, even in what would otherwise be a uniform partner selection process, there are different scales for weighing different practice areas. Which makes a lot of sense. It's hard to compare an employment partner with an M&A partner - two very different beasts.
Some of the ex-Kirkland partners will have found a better place to land, with different metrics, different culture, different clients - a platform that suits them better.
While having the title might be important, and sure it can bring opportunities you might otherwise not get, the fact is the substance here counts more than the form. If you can build a practice, whatever that looks like in your firm, the title will follow.
Evaluating your path to partnership or assessing whether your current platform supports your growth?
Book a confidential fit meeting to see how I can support you.