Jon A. Ballis, P.C.

Some legal industry experts predict Kirkland & Ellis’s entry into the Nashville, Tennessee, market could elevate compensation for top lawyers in the city’s growing legal market, but they also foresee the firm adjusting its rates to meet Music City clients’ more moderate tastes. The world’s largest firm by revenue announced Tuesday it planned to open in Nashville with four current Kirkland litigation partners currently based in Houston, the Bay Area and Washington, D.C. It also said the firm is focused on adding new talent, including “a number of additional partners and associates” with extensive experience in trial, complex commercial disputes and mass torts, among other areas. Jon Ballis, chairman of Kirkland’s executive committee, said in a statement Nashville offered “an ideal environment for our continued growth by enhancing our ability to attract exceptional legal talent in a vibrant and growing city with talented lawyers and a strong law school community.” But observers had mixed opinions about the firm’s growth chances if it uses a rate scale similar to what it and elite peers use in the nation’s largest financial centers. Similar questions accompanied Kirkland's arrival in Philadelphia just over one year ago. Tom Krider, Seattle-based managing partner of Smith Currie Oles, said any large firm that typically charged rates at the highest levels likely will be unable to use comparable rates to grow in Nashville. “They must figure out some way to compensate and to keep partners happy there who have to live with the overhead rate of Kirkland with a rate structure that may not be supported in a place as small as Nashville,” said Krider, who leads a midsize firm that operates a Nashville office. Raj Nichani, president of Atlanta recruiting firm RMN Agency, said he was curious whether Kirkland would follow the lead of other national firms and adjust its rate and compensation models to the new markets they entered. “A lot of firms have rates that are lower in different marketplaces depending on the city,” he said. Rebecca Glatzer, a partner with recruiting firm Major Lindsey & Africa, said some clients in Nashville may not be willing to pay rates at the highest level: "That actually creates opportunity for everyone up and down the Am Law rankings." "There are going to be some firms that don’t want to compete with the new players,” Glatzer said. “Other firms are going to say, ‘Our clients aren’t going to want to pay those rates,' and that gives us an opportunity in regards to certain types of work, or to specialize in certain types of work because our clients aren’t going to want to pay that at all.” Glatzer added that she expects Kirkland's arrival to prompt other firms already in the market to do an analysis of their rate structure. "You want to remain competitive," she emphasized. But she also said she also didn’t foresee any large national firm with a comparatively higher rate structure putting enough pressure on the overall market to force smaller, regional firms to price themselves out of the market. “I think the trick for a lot of firms is to continually figure out where do we fit in this system or what are we trying to be,” she said. “You have to decide at a certain point who your competitors are." Regarding the impact of a new firm's compensation levels, Nichani said he was curious to see if Kirkland pays bonuses to its Nashville associates on the same level as its other offices. Glatzer said any of the nation’s largest 25 firms that enter the Nashville market with a compensation model designed for major financial centers “will likely put some pressure on the upper-tier partners and senior associates in specialized practices.” “I don’t expect this automatic, wholesale reset of compensation across the market,” said Glatzer, who recruits an area that includes Nashville. “Nashville has always been thoughtful about sustainable growth and the firms there are going to be measured as it relates to both rate pressures and ... compensation pressures,” she said. “In time, I think we’ll see an upper trajectory because of this.” Room for Growth Firms opening in Nashville are entering a market that is quickly maturing but still has room for growth, Glatzer noted. She said strong regional and Tennessee‑based firms dominated the city’s legal industry "with relatively limited national Big Law presence” for years until national firms began establishing outposts in recent years. More than 30 of the largest U.S. firms now operate offices in Nashville, including Am Law 50 firms McDermott Will & Schulte and Holland & Knight, who have entered the city since 2023. Foley & Lardner, Husch Blackwell and Winstead also opened offices in Nashville since early 2024. Yet, Glatzer said there is still room for growth as demand and pricing evolve in the more “mature” practices in Nashville, including health care litigation, corporate, real estate and entertainment-related law. She said Nashville's health care industry has typically drawn law firms to the city because of the sector’s dominance in the market. More than 300 health care companies, including Fortune 500 company HCA Healthcare, operate in the Nashville area and Vanderbilt University Medical Center is the area’s largest employer. But Nashville also is home to Fortune 500 companies in the petroleum and retail sectors, like Tractor Supply Co. and Dollar General. Glatzer noted law firms in Nashville have “always had other types of practices that are not as well-known or heralded as health care” such as real estate or tax law. Glatzer said she had seen demand for associates in litigation, labor and employment and corporate areas in Nashville recently. “Despite the fact that Nashville is kind of known for health care, there are plenty of other things that are done by lawyers in that city,” Glatzer said. “I think they will continue to grow as Nashville grows as a city and as an industry hub.” Despite Kirkland opening its Nashville office with litigators, Nichani said he didn't foresee the firm ignoring health care's prominence in Nashville's economy. He said large firms often are seeking to grow by acquiring groups of attorneys to serve specific clients or ways to improve market positions. “You’re going to see them acquire all of the different pieces, like health care or real estate, or other pieces of the pie,” he said. Nichani said he also believed local attorneys will be “intrigued” by the firm—despite any questions they may have about rate and compensation levels—which could lead to relatively rapid growth in Nashville. “It will cause a good, in my opinion, wave of events where more folks will start to take interest in the firm,” Nichani said. “I can see that firm definitely growing in the next three to five years quite gradually upscale.”

Feb 11

5 min

Each week, the Law.com Barometer newsletter, powered by the ALM Global Newsroom and Legalweek brings you the trends, disruptions, and shifts our reporters and editors are tracking through coverage spanning every beat and region across the ALM Global Newsroom. The micro-topic coverage will not only help you navigate the changing legal landscape but also prepare you to discuss these shifts with thousands of legal leaders at Legalweek 2026, taking place from March 9-12, 2026, in New York City at the North Javits Center. Registration is now open. The Shift: Big Law Is Still Running the Geographic Expansion Playbook—and Winning Even in the era of headline-dominating merger mania, more conventional forms of geographic expansion remain a critical strategy for the most influential Am Law firms, and a key driver of rapidly intensifying (and highly disruptive) industry consolidation. There’s no shortage of proof to begin the year. Kirkland & Ellis recently entered Nashville, which firm chairman Jon Ballis called “an ideal environment for our continued growth by enhancing our ability to attract exceptional legal talent in a vibrant and growing city with talented lawyers and a strong law school community.” Consistent with Kirkland’s strategy in a Philadelphia launch a year ago, the Nashville office is made up of key litigators, though the firm says Nashville will quickly become a full-service office. We learned the same day that Latham & Watkins will be opening an office in Dallas. It’s not every week that the No. 1- and No. 2-ranked Am Law firms (by revenue) plant proverbial flags in new markets. But those are just two of the numerous examples in only the first few weeks of 2026. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett will open a San Franciso office to pair with its nearby Palo Alto outpost. San Franciso also is the location of Ballard Spahr’s newest office. Houston provided a launchpad (pun intended) for Sullivan & Cromwell and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (who both poached Kirkland in the process). Haynes and Boone gained a foothold in another well-saturated Big Law market: Boston. Womble Bond Dickinson opened three new shops via hiring a large team from dissolving McGlinchey Stafford. Weil, Gotshal & Manges loves Texas enough to launch its third office there, in Austin. Morrison & Foerster and McGuireWoods both entered Seattle thanks to departees from merger-bound Perkins Coie. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Offit Kurman and Littler also opened new offices, to go along with numerous other firms on or outside the Am Law rankings. The Conversation Law firm mergers present highly visible market shifts. Entire firms are subsumed in one fell swoop. Rankings change, brands disappear. In the lead-up time to such firm combinations, partner runoff drives significant hiring activity for opportunistic rivals. But all the same sorts knock-on effects are caused by more conventional forms of geographic expansion, too. New firm incursions can be “incredibly disruptive” to existing firms, said Roxanne Jensen, founder of law firm consultancy EvolveLaw and former office managing partner for Morrison Foerster in Denver. “It’s gotten more and more sophisticated over time,” Jensen said, adding that firms “are having a much more disciplined, data-based approach to geographic expansion.” As an example of the potential disruption, Jensen pointed to her home market, where incumbent firm Sherman & Howard in 2024 lost eight lawyers to Venable’s new Denver office. Later that year, Sherman, with its 132-year history, would merge into Taft Stettinius & Hollister. The year before, Hogan Lovells lost a pair of laterals to Womble’s new Denver outpost, which quickly grew further thanks to its merger with Lewis Roca. Sarah Morris, a partner at recruiting firm Macrae, pointed out that new market entrants can have the buying power to reset the partner compensation landscape. “Word gets out what various partners are paid to make a move,” and that makes some partners at legacy firms more willing to answer recruiting calls, Morris said. The Significance Despite indications that Am Law firms are more cautious about planting flags in new markets, law firms are not always “city agnostic.” The above-noted activity (in barely six weeks’ time) shows that the traditional geographic expansion strategy hasn’t been abandoned at all. More to the point, incumbent firms shouldn’t lose sight of what the mounting impact of an ambitious market entrant can be, including serious ramifications on talent share. Look no further than the first firm mentioned above. Going back to 2014—and as recently as last year—Kirkland has opened offices in key markets including Houston, Boston, Dallas, Austin, Miami and Philadelphia. In some of those offices, the firm has achieved tenfold attorney headcount increases, according to Law.com Compass data. These growth rates well outpace the firm’s 146% firmwide headcount increase from 2013-2024. Zeroing in on Boston, Kirkland has added groups from Goodwin as well as Skadden in recent years. But not all the growth has come from news-making laterals. Compass indicates Kirkland added roughly 30 attorneys in Boston last year alone—two-thirds of them, associates. The Information 'All About Talent': As Kirkland and Latham Expand Nationally, Secondary Markets Get Renewed Focusnull Big Law Firms in DC Prioritize West Coast Business Growth Will Cadwalader-Hogan Lovells Merger Spur FOMO over Charlotte Market? For New York Firms, the Houston Migration Is Far From Over In New Nashville Outpost, Kirkland Must Thread the Needle Between Premium Rates and Market Expectations Law Firms in 'Space Race' for NYC Office Leases Austin, Atlanta, Nashville and Denver Stay Hot, as Firms Use Group Moves to Enter Secondary Markets How Elite New York Firms Measure Up In London In a Year of Mergers, Midsize Firm Market Saw Major Consolidation The Forecast Even independent of merger activity, large firms will continue to enter new markets. The moves can be talent driven or client driven, strategic or opportunistic—or some hybrid of those along with many other factors. The moves won’t be relegated to fledgling or secondary markets, as illustrated by the proliferation of moves in very mature markets such as Dallas, Houston and Chicago. It can’t be assumed that those entries will automatically upend those markets. After all, firms that open a new office but don’t commit to investing in it—monetarily or otherwise—might prove to have little lasting impact at all. The risks to incumbent firms are nevertheless real. Per the above data, a large, well-resourced and committed entrant can grow to be among the largest “firms” in any market, and quite swiftly. There is, according to Jenson, a “silver lining.” “One upside for those incumbents is, it forces them to focus on their true strength and expertise differentiators,” she said. That effort “helps them not only to retain their talent and their clients, but helps them to improve their financial performance,” and “hopefully raises the bar on the client experience for the entire market.” That process, she noted, “becomes more urgent in light of the growth of the larger firms in any particular market.” In much the same way firms will benefit from getting themselves “positioned for merger,” improvements in client service delivery, valuation, compensation and governance with an eye toward fortifying against a changing competitive field can go a long way, too. An ounce of introspection and action now can be worth several pounds of protection later. David Gialanella, leading the business of law team at Law.com, is the editor-in-chief of The American Lawyer.

Feb 19

5 min

Top congressional Democrats are once again pressing Kirkland & Ellis on the nature of its deal with President Donald Trump, according to a newly published letter of inquiry addressed to firm chairman Jon Ballis. The latest letter from Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee; and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, is now their fourth attempt to get concrete answers about the nature of Kirkland’s deal with the president, in which the firm promised to provide $125 billion in pro bono services under the president’s term. Since striking the deal, Kirkland has also reportedly taken on work for the U.S. Department of Commerce for free. “We have written to your firm three times previously seeking documents and answers regarding this corrupt bargain, and Kirkland has provided no responsive information or records in response to any of these letters,” the latest inquiry, postmarked March 2, 2026, reads. “In light of Kirkland’s failure to meaningfully respond, and your firm’s potential violation of federal law, we seek additional information about your firm’s contacts with Mr. Boris Epshteyn and details of your work for the federal government.” In two April 2025 letters, Blumenthal, Raskin and Schiff first sought information regarding Kirkland’s deal with the president as well as Kirkland’s possible attempts to recruit lawyers from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which was targeted with a punitive executive order from the Trump administration earlier in the year. In a third inquiry, posted in September 2025, the group of representatives sought information regarding the nature of Kirkland’s work with the Commerce Department or any other government agency as well as details on whether the firm was being compensated for that work. In two responses, both signed by Kirkland litigation partner W. Neil Eggleston, a former White House counsel to President Barack Obama, Kirkland provided minimal details about its agreement with the president. The first response, dated April 28, 2025, described the deal as adhering to the firm’s meritocratic ideals and resolving an EEOC investigation into the firm; the second response, dated Oct. 7, 2025, indicated that the firm was “comfortable” with the agreement it made with the administration, stating that Kirkland retained its autonomy in selecting whom to represent and was keenly “attuned” to potential client conflicts as a result of the agreement. “Your (September 2025) letter raises a number of legal issues in connection with legal work the firm performs without pay for government agencies pursuant to the agreement. We are comfortable that the agreement does not run afoul of the issues that you raise in your letter,” Kirkland's second response reads. However, the most recent Congressional inquiry takes issue with Kirkland’s admission to performing work for an unidentified set of government agencies for free. “This admission is startling,” the letter states, referring to Kirkland’s October response. “Kirkland has not only informed Congress that it is conducting legal work for government agencies—plural—but that it is doing so for free. In effect, Kirkland concedes providing free legal work directly after being threatened by the Trump administration with a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigation and the prospect of financial- and access-related penalties that were previously imposed on other law firms.” The letter ultimately suggests that Kirkland’s work for the federal government may fall under the category of bribery. Compounding that accusation, the letter also raises concerns about the role of former Trump administration official Boris Epshteyn in striking the deal and describes previous allegations of bribery involving Epshteyn. “The involvement of Mr. Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump administration official, legal fixer and a Trump co-conspirator to overturn the 2020 presidential election, raises yet further concerns about this arrangement,” the letter reads. “Mr. Epshteyn has been dogged by reports that he solicited illegal pay-to-play schemes in exchange for securing political appointments in the Trump administration.” Furthermore, the inquiry raises several other concerns with Kirkland’s deal, ranging from creating conflicts around clients looking to sue the Trump administration, violations of the American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct, and possible violations of the Antideficiency Act. “The time for short, nonresponsive replies—assuring us that Kirkland knows best and feels comfortable about its arrangements with the Trump administration—is over. We again request all records related to your agreement with the Trump administration, including communications and written agreements, as well as all communications, meeting records, or documents relating to any negotiations with Mr. Epshteyn,” the inquiry insists. The letter requests that Kirkland provide Blumenthal, Raskin and Schiff with all of its communications with Boris Epshteyn or his agents; a list of individuals or entities who wrote to Kirkland or its agents to discuss an agreement with the administration; all agreements made with the administration, including client retainers and conflict disclosures; and a list of federal agencies the firm has provided work to, including the number and billable value of the hours worked. However, while Democratic lawmakers have continued to press firms to provide details on their deals with the president, since they are in the minority, they aren’t able to force firms to respond to inquiries and would likely need Republican support for any subpoena efforts. A spokesperson for Kirkland & Ellis did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Representatives for Blumenthal and Raskin did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for Schiff pointed to a recent X post from the Senator. "Top law firms are still providing free legal services at Trump's bidding, even though doing so may be a clear violation of the law. Just one day after the administration said it would abandon its defense of its attacks on law firms, they unsurprisingly reversed course," Schiff's post reads, tagging Raskin and Blumenthal. "[We] are continuing to demand answers — including the role Trump fixer Boris Epshteyn played in brokering these corrupt bargains." This article has since been updated with a comment from Sen. Adam Schiff.

Mar 3

4 min

Top congressional Democrats are once again pressing Kirkland & Ellis on the nature of its deal with President Donald Trump, according to a newly published letter of inquiry addressed to firm chairman Jon Ballis. The latest letter from Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; and Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee is now their fourth attempt to get concrete answers about the nature of Kirkland’s deal with the president, in which the firm promised to provide $125 billion in pro bono services under the president’s term. Since striking the deal, Kirkland has also reportedly taken on work for the U.S. Department of Commerce for free. “We have written to your firm three times previously seeking documents and answers regarding this corrupt bargain, and Kirkland has provided no responsive information or records in response to any of these letters,” the latest inquiry, postmarked March 2, 2026, reads. “In light of Kirkland’s failure to meaningfully respond, and your firm’s potential violation of federal law, we seek additional information about your firm’s contacts with Mr. Boris Epshteyn and details of your work for the federal government.” In two April 2025 letters, Blumenthal, Raskin and Schiff first sought information regarding Kirkland’s deal with the president as well as Kirkland’s possible attempts to recruit lawyers from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which was targeted with a punitive executive order from the Trump administration earlier in the year. In a third inquiry, posted in September 2025, the group of representatives sought information regarding the nature of Kirkland’s work with the Commerce Department or any other government agency as well as details on whether the firm was being compensated for that work. In two responses, both signed by Kirkland litigation partner W. Neil Eggleston, a former White House counsel to President Barack Obama, Kirkland provided minimal details about its agreement with the president. The first response, dated April 28, 2025, described the deal as adhering to the firm’s meritocratic ideals and resolving an EEOC investigation into the firm; the second response, dated Oct. 7, 2025, indicated that the firm was “comfortable” with the agreement it made with the administration, stating that Kirkland retained its autonomy in selecting whom to represent and was keenly “attuned” to potential client conflicts as a result of the agreement. “Your (September 2025) letter raises a number of legal issues in connection with legal work the firm performs without pay for government agencies pursuant to the agreement. We are comfortable that the agreement does not run afoul of the issues that you raise in your letter,” Kirkland's second response reads. However, the most recent Congressional inquiry takes issue with Kirkland’s admission to performing work for an unidentified set of government agencies for free. “This admission is startling,” the letter states, referring to Kirkland’s October response. “Kirkland has not only informed Congress that it is conducting legal work for government agencies—plural—but that it is doing so for free. In effect, Kirkland concedes providing free legal work directly after being threatened by the Trump administration with a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigation and the prospect of financial- and access-related penalties that were previously imposed on other law firms.” The letter ultimately suggests that Kirkland’s work for the federal government may fall under the category of bribery. Compounding that accusation, the letter also raises concerns about the role of former Trump administration official Boris Epshteyn in striking the deal and describes previous allegations of bribery involving Epshteyn. “The involvement of Mr. Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump administration official, legal fixer and a Trump co-conspirator to overturn the 2020 presidential election, raises yet further concerns about this arrangement,” the letter reads. “Mr. Epshteyn has been dogged by reports that he solicited illegal pay-to-play schemes in exchange for securing political appointments in the Trump administration.” Furthermore, the inquiry raises several other concerns with Kirkland’s deal, ranging from creating conflicts around clients looking to sue the Trump administration, violations of the American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct, and possible violations of the Antideficiency Act. “The time for short, nonresponsive replies—assuring us that Kirkland knows best and feels comfortable about its arrangements with the Trump administration—is over. We again request all records related to your agreement with the Trump administration, including communications and written agreements, as well as all communications, meeting records, or documents relating to any negotiations with Mr. Epshteyn,” the inquiry insists. The letter requests that Kirkland provide Blumenthal, Raskin and Schiff with all of its communications with Boris Epshteyn or his agents; a list of individuals or entities who wrote to Kirkland or its agents to discuss an agreement with the administration; all agreements made with the administration, including client retainers and conflict disclosures; and a list of federal agencies the firm has provided work to, including the number and billable value of the hours worked. However, while Democratic lawmakers have continued to press firms to provide details on their deals with the president, since they are in the minority, they aren’t able to force firms to respond to inquiries and would likely need Republican support for any subpoena efforts. A spokesperson for Kirkland & Ellis did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Representatives for Blumenthal and Raskin did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for Schiff pointed to a recent X post from the senator. "Top law firms are still providing free legal services at Trump's bidding, even though doing so may be a clear violation of the law. Just one day after the administration said it would abandon its defense of its attacks on law firms, they unsurprisingly reversed course," Schiff's post reads, tagging Raskin and Blumenthal. "[We] are continuing to demand answers — including the role Trump fixer Boris Epshteyn played in brokering these corrupt bargains." This article has since been updated with a comment from Sen. Adam Schiff.

Mar 3

4 min

Kirkland & Ellis has bolstered its European corporate practice with the hire of Sebastian Heim, who joins as partner across its Munich and London offices. Heim, a Milbank London partner, has advised on deals including Carlyle’s €7.7 billion ($8.9 billion) acquisition of BASF’s coating business and General Atlantic’s $5.7 billion public offering of SMG Swiss Marketing Group, at the time the largest European IPO of the year. Heim joined Milbank in 2011 as an associate, according to his LinkedIn. “Sebastian is one of the go-to private equity lawyers in Germany,” said Jon A. Ballis, chairman of Kirkland’s executive committee. Heim’s regularly advises clients on corporate law, M&A, and growth equity matters. “Sebastian is an extraordinary lawyer with a stellar reputation,” said Benjamin Leyendecker, a corporate partner in Kirkland’s Munich office. The move comes just 18 months after Kirkland opened its Frankfurt office in August 2024. The hub cooperates closely with Kirkland's Munich office, which has been described by Leyendecker as “key pillar of our strategy”. Heim is joining the Munich office, which has 17 partners listed on Kirkland’s website. Kirkland saw record lateral hires and partner promotions globally in 2025 alongside seven lateral hires in Germany since opening in Frankfurt. Kirkland’s German partners have also been in demand elsewhere, however, with former restructuring partner Leo Plank moving to Gibson Dunn in February. Milbank has been contacted for comment.

Mar 3

1 min