The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
 32 posters qualify.
You have 0 points. Copying this list does not send funds. Paste it on Disperse, then connect your wallet there. |
Biglaw Profits Per Partner (PPP) info for 2005
Date: March 5th, 2006 4:48 PM Author: marvelous native EDIT: This list isn't being maintained anymore. For the most recent list, see the AmLaw 200 issue. It's on Westlaw at 6/2006 AMLAW 143. For 2006 numbers, see http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=563047&mc=57&forum_id=2
Law firms are reporting financial info, so I might as well collect them into one list. As usual, I reserve judgment on whether any of this info is actually "useful" -- if you prefer some other metric like revenue per lawyer, wait for AmLaw or run the numbers yourself. (EDIT: See below.)
This list is complete through the AmLaw 100 (and a few others), and I'll update it as more info is released. If you run across new/updated info, please contribute a link and I'll add it.
Firm - PPP (percent change) / PPP including nonequity partners
Wachtell - $3.79m (+8.3%) Cravath - $2.600m (+17.9%) Cadwalader - $2.545m (+20.6%) / $2.025m Paul Weiss - $2.475m (+14.8%) Sullivan - $2.410m (+2.6%) Simpson - $2.370m (+1.7%) Cahill - $2.285m (-6.9%) / $2.255m Kirkland - $2.120m (+7.3%) / $1.160m Milbank - $2.020m (+6.3%) / $1.935m Davis - $2.000m (-0.2%) Cleary - $1.960m (+14.3%) Quinn - $1.96m (+1%) Skadden - $1.910m (+10.1%) Schulte - $1.900m (+4.7%) / $1.885m Weil - $1.830m (+7.6%) / $1.535m Willkie - $1.790m (+9.1%) Debevoise - $1.675m (+10.9%) Gibson - $1.635m (+7.9%) O'Melveny - $1.615 (+23.3%) / $1.515m Latham - $1.600m (+13.9%) / $1.400m Dechert - $1.560m (+26.3%) / $1.195m Irell - $1.5m (-3%) Shearman - $1.385m (+20.4%) / $1.335m Kramer Levin - $1.375m (+13.6%) / $1.150m LeBoeuf - $1.32m (+14.2%) / $1.095m Paul Hastings - $1.325m (+12.8%) / $1.205m Kaye Scholer - $1.285m (+8.9%) / $1.260m McDermott - $1.280m (+7.6%) / $825k Goodwin Proctor - $1.245m (+6.9%) / $1.005m Orrick - $1.240m (+13.8%) / $865k Fried Frank - $1.240m (+7.4%) White & Case - $1.240m (+1.6%) / $1.075m Sidley - $1.235m (+21.1%) / $890k Dewey - $1.225m (-0.4%) / $1.070m Proskauer - $1.220m (+7.0%) / $1.190m Bingham - $1.220m (+6.1%) / $780k Stroock - $1.145m (+8.0%) Winston - $1.115m (+13.2%) / $675k Hughes Hubbard - $1.100m (+8.4%) Gunderson - $1.1m Greenberg Traurig - $1.090m (+10.7%) / $610k Munger - ~$1.08m (+4%) Ropes - $1.080m (+1.9%) Vinson - $1.070m (+19.6%) / $940k Dickstein - $1.065m (+30.7%) / $840k King & Spaulding - $1.050m (-10.6%) / $820k MoFo - $1.050m (+27.3%) / $835k DLA Piper - $1.000m / $645k Morgan Lewis - $1.000 (+11.1%) / $780k Manatt - $1.03m (+12%) Wilson Sonsini - $980k (+13.3%) Covington - $975k (+18.2%) Akin Gump - $965k (+8%) / $800k Chadbourne - $965m (-3.5%) / $725k Howrey - $960k (+23.9%) / $690k Mayer Brown - $955k (+5.5%) Katten Muchin - $935k (+9.4%) / $655k Loeb - $926k (+30%) WilmerHale - $915k (+5%.2) Cooley Godward - $910k (+7.1%) / $890k Baker Botts - $905k (+4.6%) / $860k Fish & Richardson - $905k (+15.3%) / $660k Hogan - $905k (+9.7%) / $725k Heller - $885k (+3.5%) / $745k Fenwick - $905k (-3%) Heller - $885k (+4%) / $745k Finnegan - $870k (-2.8%) / $805k Steptoe - $855k (+8.9%) Thelen Reid - $850k (+44.1%) / $685k Foley - $845k (+13.4%) / $610k Arnold & Porter - $835k (+0.6%) Mintz Levin - $835k (+4.4%) / $550k Alston & Bird - $810k (-13.4%) / $580k Reed Smith - $800k (+20.3%) / $530k Sonnenschein - $800k (+11.1%) / $560k Sutherland - $800k (+12.7%) / $715k Sheppard - $785k (+15%) / $725k Wilson Elser - $775k (+6.9%) / $525k Pillsbury - $765k (-1.9%) / $545k Baker McKenzie - $760k (+16.9%) Kirkpatrick - $725k (+9.0%) / $510k Jones Day - $720k (+8.3%) / $700k Fulbright - $715k (+6.7%) Jenner - $710k (+7.6%) / $700k Andrews Kurth - $705k (+7.6%) / $610k Duane Morris - $675k (+18.4%) / $475k Hunton & Williams - $670k (+4.7%) / $575k Allen Matkins - $675k (+16%) Sedgewick - $640k (-7%) Pepper Hamilton - $625k (+5.0%) / $535k Squire Sanders - $625k (+3.3%) / $510k Patton Boggs - $620k (-2.4%) / $510k Bryan Cave - $615k (+15.0%) / $490k Kilpatrick - $615k (+2.5%) / $500k Perkins Coie - $610k (+22.0%) / $460k McGuireWoods - $605k (0%) Seyfarth Shaw - $600k (+12.1%) / $490k Edwards Angell - $600k / $545k Venable - $595k (+7.2%) / $480k Drinker Biddle - $575k (+15.0%) / $520k Blank Rome - $570k (+5.6%) / $485k Nixon Peabody - $570k (+3.6%) / $500k Troutman - $550k (+6.8%) / $425k Baker & Hostetler - $535k (-1.8%) / $445k Shook Hardy - $520k (+9.5%) / $400k Womble Carlyle - $515k (-8.0%) / $385k Buchanan Ingersoll - $485k (+20%) Dorsey - $485k (+1.0%) / $435k Holland & Knight - $480k (+7.9%) / $375k Cozen O'Connor - $470k (+2.2%) / $370k Littler - $445k (+2%) Faegre & Benson - $410k (+9.3%)
Last year's numbers: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=370701&mc=19&forum_id=2#5220914
Rankings by RPL: http://www.bmacewen.com/blog/archives/2006/04/the_2006_amlaw_100_ranked.html
Some rumors/speculation about firms misrepresenting PPP to AmLaw: http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2006/01/are_big_firm_la.html |
 |
Date: March 5th, 2006 4:51 PM Author: spruce library toaster Doesn't Quinn also have a 5 or 6 year partnership track? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5254691) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 4:54 PM Author: Sooty forum NALP:
"Attorneys are eligible for partnership 6 years from graduation provided they have been with the firm for a minimum of 3 years." |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:40 PM Author: concupiscible home Subject: Yeah, but ... It typically takes much longer than 6 years or doesn't happen at all. Also, they have non-equity partners. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255107) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 6:10 PM Author: spruce library toaster I suppose I could have just taken your word for it, but... They just named 4 partners. Two of them graduated in 1999. That's 6 years (not to mention that one of those 6 was spent clerking, so in reality it was 5). The other two graduated in 1997, though one of them only moved to Quinn in 2001, and the other also clerked. Last year's associates elected to partnership had been with the firm 5,6, and 7 years. Also, they have practically a 1-1 associate to partner ratio. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 6:31 PM Author: concupiscible home Subject: You are high ... They have non-equity partners. The partnership ratio you mention is meaningless. If you think they have a 1:1 ratio and the avg. of those partners is $1.9 million, you are a complete idiot.
I knew someone who left Quinn as a young "partner" to become an associate at another firm. It's much less than meets the eye ...
Believe what you want to believe. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 6:33 PM Author: spruce library toaster Look dude, I don't care, and we know very little about what the non-equity compensation is. All I know is that your claims that it usually takes much longer to get elected to partner were easily found to be utter horseshit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255599) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 6:45 PM Author: concupiscible home Subject: Non-equity partnership is not partnership Seriously. You are still a salaried employee --- basically an associate / of counsel. What I'm saying is that it is as difficult or harder to become a real equity partner at Quinn as at any other good firm. It also takes as long or longer. My good man, don't you know that things that sound to good to be true, are. Don't be a sucker. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255737) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 6:50 PM Author: spruce library toaster I'm pretty sure every LA firm has non equity partners. Quinn has onlly about 70 partners of either stripe firmwide. What is it you're contending? Is it that the equity partners are averaging much more than $1.9 million, because that hardly seems damning, either. Quinn's associate compensation is higher than all but Munger and Irell in LA, as well. Really, you're just talking out of your ass, and it's wholly unnecessary as I do not work at that firm. |
|
Date: April 18th, 2006 12:43 PM Author: concupiscible home PPP figures do not include non equity partners. $1.9 million seems high, given the partnership ratio you cited. You need more leverage to make money than that. At 2000 hrs a year (higher than the likely average of all partners and associates) and $500 an hour (higher than the avg billing rate of all partners and associates), you only have $1.0 million in REVENUE, never mind PROFIT. Now, Quinn can increase this somewhat by doing contingency work, which I have heard they have done with some success. But it is hard to imagine $1.9 million in profits, without more leverage.
Most firms have a few non-equity partners. Typically they are either new partners up for equity partnership in a couple of years (Kirkland, etc.) or old partners who are "past their prime" (many other large firms). But it is particularly common at mid-sized firms to have more non-equity partners, a permanent underclass of partners who do not get paid nearly as much and who work for a salary.
|
|
Date: April 18th, 2006 12:48 PM Author: spruce library toaster Quinn's leverage is about 2:1 associate:partner. And yes, they do contingency work, and have generated a lot of revenue doing so. Yes, MOST firms have non-equity partners. Quinn doesn't. It's really quite simple. You're either lying, or you were misinformed. |
|
Date: April 18th, 2006 1:00 PM Author: concupiscible home I think that you are wanting to believe something that just isn't true. If I was misinformed, it was by two Quinn associates, who are good friends and good people. I would trust them above you, naturally. Next time I see them, I will ask them about this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5604372) |
|
Date: April 18th, 2006 1:06 PM Author: spruce library toaster Right, and KirklandTroll has it on good authority from his friends at K&E that the bathrooms there are stocked with toilet paper made from gold flake. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5604395) |
|
Date: April 18th, 2006 1:08 PM Author: stirring underhanded shrine Now you're supposed to tell him to go get hired as a Kirkland associate in order to prove you wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5604398) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2006 1:09 PM Author: spruce library toaster I've looked into this, and it seems you may be even more full of shit than I imagined. Show me proof that Quinn has a two-tier partnership system. As of July, 2004 this was not the case: "Like many of the most profitable firms, Patterson Belknap has only one partnership tier. Many firms try to boost their per-partner profits by creating multiple partner tiers, excluding all but the inner circle from sharing in the profits. But some of the most profitable firms tend not to rely on this trick. Four of the seven firms on the millionaires list have one-tier partnerships. Boies Schiller; Kramer Levin; and Jeffer Mangels are the exceptions." http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180181411
|
|
Date: April 18th, 2006 12:26 PM Author: spruce library toaster There is only one partnership tier. www.nalpdirectory.com You sir, are full of shit. |
|
Date: April 18th, 2006 12:34 PM Author: concupiscible home My understanding is that there are a large number of former A-USAs and the like that are non-equity. This comes from someone who works at Quinn. If you are interviewing, it's a reasonable question to ask after you have an offer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5604262) |
|
Date: April 18th, 2006 12:39 PM Author: spruce library toaster You're going to continue with this? You said: "It typically takes much longer than 6 years or doesn't happen at all. Also, they have non-equity partners." Both of these statements have been shown to be false.
|
|
Date: April 18th, 2006 12:47 PM Author: concupiscible home I have solid reason to believe that my statements are true, regardless of what you have read. I know some great people that work there, btw, and it is a good firm for some people. Look into it for yourself. Go and interview there, become a summer associate, etc. And come back and tell me you were wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5604312) |
|
Date: April 18th, 2006 12:52 PM Author: stirring underhanded shrine Dude, you've been thoroughly discredited. Pulling this "I know I'm right, even though I can't prove it and all available evidence shows I'm wrong" BS is laughable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5604331) |
|
Date: May 3rd, 2006 4:49 PM Author: trip blood rage gunner you are entirely wrong
(but i would just add that a relatively low-paid partner is effectively the same thing as a "non-equity partner," except that the non-equity partner doesn't have the privilege of paying a buy-in or buying his own health insurance. still, quinn unequivocally does not have anyone with the title "non-equity partner," or any equivalent) |
|
Date: May 3rd, 2006 4:53 PM Author: trip blood rage gunner "I knew someone who left Quinn as a young "partner" to become an associate at another firm. It's much less than meets the eye"
this is a true statement; apparently we both know him. for the sake of completeness, you might mention that he was made a partner after his third year at quinn. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:25 PM Author: apoplectic public bath yarmulke I keep hearing Pillsbury is going to implode. Anyone know anything? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5254984) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:42 PM Author: excitant death wish I've heard that there has been a recent exodus of partners but don't know about "imploding." Sometimes after a major merger its difficult for the firm to fully integrate and a lot of people - partner's especially- get pissed off and leave. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255128) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:59 PM Author: Harsh turquoise main people hospital I know the entire Financial Services group in their DC office just left en masse for another firm. As for implosion, I haven't heard anything of the sort. I agree that a lot of these problems may just be post-merger "readjustments." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255280) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2006 10:52 AM Author: drab impertinent azn half-breed With the way the economy is right now, there's something wrong with you if your PPP are going down. Look at that list & you'll see that only TTT firms and once decent firms that everyone knows are on the decline (Dewey) are making less this year. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#6996215) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 6:22 PM Author: cerebral crystalline house We need leverage ratios to really understand this PPP data. That is, the number of associates relative to partners. Highly leveraged firms (few partners, lots of associates) come off as impressive when they're just lower manhattan plantations, Cadwalader being the #1 offender. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255494) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 6:24 PM Author: spruce library toaster titcr. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255519) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 6:26 PM Author: marvelous native AmLaw had a new "value per lawyer" ratio last year that I think is what you're looking for. Look up 8/2005 Am. Law. 119 on Westlaw. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255538) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 12:22 AM Author: cerebral crystalline house Leverage stats (from AmLaw July 2005)
Associates:equity partners = leverage
Hint: higher leverage means PPP is inflated cause there are fewer partners divvying up all the revenue. PPP is not a meaningful stat in my point of view unless you take this data into account.
Cadwalader: 406:78 = 5.21 (the MOTHER plantation)
Weil: 896:184 = 4.87 (filthy) Kirkland: 730 :167 = 4.37 (shameful) Cleary: 676:168 = 4.02 (shocker)
Schulte: 283:71 = 3.99 Cravath: 310:79 = 3.92 (kind of embarrassing) Sidley: 1103:302 = 3.65 Paul Weiss: 377:103 = 3.66 Dewey: 410:114 = 3.6 S&S: 756:207 = 3.65 Milbank: 373:107 = 3.49 Skadden: 1,193:361 = 3.3 Debevoise: 411:125 = 3.29 STB: 480:152 = 3.16 Willkie: 383:124 = 3.09
OMM: 679:231 = 2.94 Latham: 1115:387 = 2.88 S&C: 433 :156 = 2.78 Davis Polk: 393:145 = 2.71 Fried Frank: 314:124 = 2.53 Gibson: 500:245 = 2.04
Wachtell: 117: 80 = 1.46 (Heroes of near parity)
|
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 12:28 AM Author: marvelous native Munger has more partners than associates.
Not including non-equity partners makes sense for looking at leverage from a financial perspective, but from the perspective of an associate, I think they should be included. Non-equity partners can have their own clients and manage their own caseloads, and the associate that's doing the work doesn't care how much money the partner is making. |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 12:32 AM Author: spruce library toaster What's the link or cite? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5259736) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 1:50 PM Author: cerebral crystalline house raw data is from AmLaw July 2005; i just calculated the ratio myself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5262570) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2006 2:29 PM Author: geriatric painfully honest skinny woman ticket booth Watchtell's system is TERRIBLE for associates though, because you have a lot of partners who think they can pass work off to associates, and not many associates to pass that work off to. I would talk Cadwalder's system over Watchtell's as an associate any day (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#6997646) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 1:32 PM Author: Bisexual rigor susman godfrey is up there as well - they had a slight decrease from the 2 mil ppp in 2004.
http://www.susmangodfrey.com/news/2005-Dec-AssociateBonus.htm |
|
Date: May 3rd, 2006 4:48 PM Author: galvanic dog poop GTO, can we sticky this? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5707655) |
|
Date: November 29th, 2006 3:00 PM Author: Aqua rough-skinned market psychic ty,ty,ty!! that cite is worth $475. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#7094949) |
Date: March 5th, 2006 4:49 PM Author: marvelous native Starting off with LA and Bay Area firms.
More info/links on LA here: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&mc=87&forum_id=2#4998384 SF/SV: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=334778&mc=17&forum_id=2#4758058 and http://www.bmacewen.com/blog/pdf/BayAreaTopTen2005Results.html |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 4:55 PM Author: pearl base milk LA is awesome. Bay Area offices just don't seem that powerful. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5254725) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:04 PM Author: marvelous native Cravath: http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=118667&d=11&h=24&f=23
White & Case: http://www.legalweek.com/ViewItem.asp?id=27616
Paul Weiss, LeBoeuf: http://www.legalweek.com/ViewItem.asp?id=27536
Debevoise: http://www.legalweek.com/ViewItem.asp?id=23584
Willkie, Wilmer: http://www.legalweek.com/ViewItem.asp?id=27629
Shearman: http://www.law.com/jsp/llf/PubArticleLLF.jsp?id=1140602710524
Sidley: http://www.legalweek.com/ViewItem.asp?id=27878
Cadwalader: http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=118746&d=11&h=24&f=23
DLA Piper: http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=118830&d=11&h=24&f=23 |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:33 PM Author: excitant death wish Seems like a good year for Paul Weiss. I think they are finally getting some big-time M&A deals from some of their litigation clients. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255053) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:37 PM Author: marvelous native They've also done some big Asia deals, private equity work I think. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255084) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:39 PM Author: excitant death wish Yeah, I have heard they have one of the stronger Asian practices of U.S.-based firms. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255097) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:12 PM Author: marvelous native Vinson and Baker Botts, thanks to JudgeDredd's thread: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=367878&mc=60&forum_id=2 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5254879) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:17 PM Author: marvelous native McDermott: http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=118876&d=11&h=24&f=23
Dechert: http://www.legalweek.com/ViewItem.asp?id=27548
|
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:23 PM Author: apoplectic public bath yarmulke $1.56 million PPP? How is a TTT like Dechert making so much money? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5254974) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 1:01 PM Author: titillating ruby fortuitous meteor heaven I'm sorry to hear you picked an imploding firm like Shearman or a firm like Cadwalder or Weil based on reputation, only to discover that the "TTT" Dechert has comparable PPP, with a significantly greater chance of becoming partner. Enjoy your time at one of those "first-tier" firms while you have the chance (ie: before they ask you to leave when it become clear that you aren't partner material). Now I'm off to Greedy NY to talk with the other big boys. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5262214) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 1:21 PM Author: Cobalt temple knife "significantly greater chance of becoming partner."
Proof of that? |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 5:44 PM Author: cerebral crystalline house when did Dechert get internet?
If you saw the people from my school that consider Dechert (outside of Philly) then you wouldn't question for a second why we'd all rather go to Shearman, Weil, etc. than work our asses off to end up sharing office space with the bottom 1/8th of the class. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:25 PM Author: Infuriating Opaque School Cafeteria How is Cadwalader Pwning so bad? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5254986) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:28 PM Author: apoplectic public bath yarmulke CDo & CLO stuff. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255011) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:29 PM Author: excitant death wish I think part of it is that they run a really good business. For example I am pretty sure they own their own building downtown which really cuts costs on overhead. Plus they do some really good corporate work (M&A, Real Estate, Corp. Finance) which translates into big $. Good luck making partner though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255015) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 6:24 PM Author: cerebral crystalline house it's leverage, dude. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255514) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 6:25 PM Author: spruce library toaster Correct. Their PPP is the result of the blood and sweat of their labor. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255525) |
|
Date: May 3rd, 2006 4:45 PM Author: Tan embarrassed to the bone site and this is different from other firms how? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5707641) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 2:28 PM Author: Cream alcoholic dilemma I don’t deny that cwt isn’t the easiest firm to work for, but is simply isn’t accurate to claim that cwt isn’t one of the most successful firms around. Almost all the top firms are very very leveraged, and if you adjusted for leverage cwt would still have top 10 profits. Also, cwt is able to be leveraged because of the amount of work it has coming in. There are many vault 50 firms that don’t have enough work for all their first years. The firm has top tier (top 10 or so) real estate, bankruptcy, securitization and derivatives practices, this is why they are so successful. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5262842) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 6:32 PM Author: Beady-eyed Gaped Depressive Business Firm Subject: I really think it's because they own their own building... think about how much that saves them in terms of Costs Per Partner... take that away and I'd imagine them closer to Dewey.
|
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 6:37 PM Author: cerebral crystalline house wait. They just moved to the World Financial Center, which they do not own. Maybe they owned 100 maiden lane, but then again, maybe they continually borrowed against it keep the firm going... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255638) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 11:45 PM Author: Beady-eyed Gaped Depressive Business Firm Subject: I can't speak to their new building... but they most definitely owned their old building (100 Maiden Lane)... they certainly bragged about it enough during my interview. I don't know if they own the new one, but the rent on the old building (assuming ownership) or the interest upon investment (assuming a sale) would certainly bolster PPP. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5259233) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 1:31 PM Author: Cobalt temple knife They sold and now are leasing. http://www.cwt.com/assets/news_release/New%20Office%20Space091703.pdf (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5262402) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:26 PM Author: marvelous native Hogan: http://www.legalweek.com/ViewItem.asp?id=27235
Reed Smith: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139565917375 |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:30 PM Author: marvelous native Bryan Cave, Bingham, Fish & Richardson: http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=118457&d=11&h=24&f=23 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255028) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 5:42 PM Author: marvelous native Let me add this link that suggests firms are misrepresenting PPP to AmLaw: http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2006/01/are_big_firm_la.html (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255124) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2006 12:32 PM Author: Cobalt temple knife Why would the firms all be bringing their financials to Citibank? Doesn't that sound wierd? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5271212) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2006 12:33 PM Author: marvelous native It does, but here's a possible explanation (towards the end of the comments):
"I don't know that "rumor" you are referring to, but Citibank long ago courted law firms for banking business and began to collect data for peer comparisons on a variety of economic measures. No one has the breadth of data that Citibank has. The data are presented without the names of other firms but you can tell roughly who is in your peer group and discussions may provide other hints. Firms that want continued access to the data have an incentive to keep doing business with Citibank. So the service is a good "binder" for Citibank." |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 6:20 PM Author: razzmatazz sable roast beef fat ankles every time i see the letter 'p' i think of PLAYBOY!!! in fact i accidentally saw sesame street with the letter 'p' and i had an instant boner. plus the mexican lady was hot and i thought 'please pose for PLAYBOY mexican lady!!!!!!!!!!!!" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5255478) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2006 11:49 PM Author: sick cruel-hearted senate water buffalo KIRKLAND & ELLIS topped a bill for the first time ever!! Lets see even bigger bonuses next year! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5259279) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 1:14 PM Author: curious new version hall Subject: simpson thacher/sulcrom, kirkland, etc. http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=119101&d=122&h=24&f=46 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5262293) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 1:36 PM Author: marvelous native It does seem like Kirkland has become the first big non-NY firm to break $2 million in PPP. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5262431) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 1:15 PM Author: curious new version hall http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=119101&d=122&h=24&f=46 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5262298) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 1:18 PM Author: marvelous native Thanks, will update. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5262316) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 1:27 PM Author: marvelous native Added a bunch of firms based on the link above and the table at http://www.thelawyer.com/news/tables/tb_119101.html
Also Duane Morris: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1141207514853 |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 1:53 PM Author: Talented hell Hazelrah, you seriously are amazing at keeping us up-to-date with law firm information. It's been said before, but thank you for all the work you do on this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5262601) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 1:55 PM Author: red resort Gibson should go up next year, what with all the money they're saving on summer associate salaries. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5262619) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 1:57 PM Author: Claret Slap-happy Location cahill is missing from your list, they are always in the top 3 or 4 in PPP (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5262631) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 2:32 PM Author: marvelous native Yeah, sorry I should have made it clear it's not complete yet. Cahill hasn't announced anything as far as I know, but do contribute a link if you hear about it.
EDIT: Added a line in the OP clarifying this. |
|
Date: March 6th, 2006 2:52 PM Author: Claret Slap-happy Location appreciate your efforts (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5263043) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2006 11:43 AM Author: marvelous native Some random additions, just for the sake of completeness: Buchanan: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1140084312809 Chadbourne: http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?hubtype=TopStories&id=1138788309760
Chadbourne article is a little unclear. Last year AmLaw had them at $1m PPP, and this article says PPP decreased by "slightly less" than 5%, but still puts them at $1m PPP, so there's obviously some number-fudging going on here to help them get that symbolic effect or whatever. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2006 12:19 PM Author: snowy magical locale Question: Is PPP calculated based on equity partners only or does it include nonequity partners? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5271127) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2006 12:23 PM Author: snowy magical locale Also, last year Greenberg reported close to 1 million. The OP indicates that they went up by 20%, but the PPP in the OP is less than the PPP for last year. Why?
EDIT: Nevermind, the link below makes it clear. Total Revenue was used in the OP, which was 860 million. The link says NA for PPP and $985k for PPP in 2004. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2006 12:27 PM Author: marvelous native Sorry, I misread the article on Greenberg and used their revenue figure ($860m), which is +21% from last year. They haven't announced their PPP yet.
I removed it from the list, thanks for catching this. |
|
Date: March 26th, 2006 11:27 AM Author: disturbing preventive strike patrolman (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5429242) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2006 12:30 PM Author: marvelous native You should assume all the numbers I've posted are profits per equity partner. You'll notice a couple of firms also have stats for profits for all partners (if you know the # of equity/nonequity partners, you can do the math yourself). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5271193) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2006 12:38 PM Author: snowy magical locale Thanks. PEP makes sense because nonequity partners are not as directly affected by profitability. On the other hand, please see my post in the other thread for a criticism of relying solely on PEP.
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=374503&mc=6&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: March 8th, 2006 5:59 PM Author: Mind-boggling mewling stain candlestick maker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5283777) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2006 1:57 AM Author: contagious bipolar crotch Thanks a lot Hazelrah. You and a few other posters are what makes it worthwhile to come to this board.
|
|
Date: March 9th, 2006 7:22 PM Author: marvelous native Pepper Hamilton: http://www.nylawyer.com/display.php/file=/news/06/03/030906a (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5293708) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2006 4:25 AM Author: marvelous native Dewey Ballantine: http://www.legalweek.com/ViewItem.asp?id=27973
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart (missed this one from earlier): http://www.legalweek.com/ViewItem.asp?id=27170 |
|
Date: March 19th, 2006 4:30 AM Author: laughsome mad-dog skullcap (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5372597) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2006 4:34 AM Author: marvelous native See my other posts in this thread for sources. I just keep editing the first post as I add info. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5372616) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2006 12:23 PM Author: marvelous native Added Fried Frank and Proskauer: http://www.legalweek.com/ViewItem.asp?id=28221 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5414971) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2006 1:56 PM Author: Comical field associate Does anyone know how PPP translates on a geographical basis? I.E. In a multi-office firm, do the NYC partners take home the same $$$ as the Atlanta partners and the LA partners? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5415602) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2006 2:11 PM Author: marvelous native Partner compensation almost always depends at least partly on how much you're bringing in for the firm. Even firms with lockstep systems are usually adjusted enough to reward and attract rainmakers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5415688) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2006 4:32 PM Author: Gold aphrodisiac degenerate abode Subject: Debevoise is wrong, I believe. I'm fairly sure Debevoise PPP in 2005 was 1.67 million. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5416760) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2006 6:55 PM Author: marvelous native You're right. The link above was for 2004 info. I found a source that gives $1.7m for 2005, do you have another link? http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=119233&d=122&h=24&f=46
EDIT: Nevermind, this one gives $1.675: http://www.legalweek.com/ViewItem.asp?id=28199 |
|
Date: March 24th, 2006 6:57 PM Author: marvelous native Added Akin Gump: http://www.legalweek.com/ViewItem.asp?id=28199 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5417652) |
|
Date: April 8th, 2006 1:54 PM Author: marvelous native Added Sonnenschein, made some slight edits to Quinn and Manatt. Source is 3/13/06 L.A. Bus. J. 1 on Westlaw. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5541775) |
|
Date: April 8th, 2006 2:06 PM Author: marvelous native Added Davis Polk: http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=119434&d=122&h=24&f=46 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5541868) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2006 12:23 AM Author: marvelous native Adding Gunderson Dettmer based on a December 2005 AmLaw article, mentioned here http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1145621801037
That figure might be for 2004, but we'll probably never know since they don't officially disclose their financials. |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2006 1:29 PM Author: marvelous native Updated the top 15 with the AmLaw numbers posted here: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=409460&mc=10&forum_id=2
Also I added Irell, and Paul Hastings numbers for total (equity/nonequity) partners. Source is 2/15/06 issue of the Recorder, sorry I missed it the first time. |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2006 1:30 PM Author: marvelous native Might as well post that Recorder article (it's on Westlaw at 2/15/2006 RECORDER-SF 2)
FIRM THAT LED SALARY RAISE RACE SAW REVENUE, PROFIT DIP IN '05
Kellie Schmitt Recorder Staff Writer
LOS ANGELES - Unlike most of the California firms that have raised associate salaries, the firm that started it back in September - L.A.-based Irell & Manella - saw revenue and profits dip in 2005, according to figures provided by the firm Tuesday. The 200-lawyer firm said revenue declined 4 percent to $191 million. Profits per partner dropped 3 percent to $1.5 million. Irell and Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker are the last of the major L.A. firms to report financial results. At Paul, Hastings, revenue was up 10 percent to $667 million, while profits per equity partner were up 13 percent, at $1.3 million. Average partner compensation - which includes pay for nonequity partners - was $1.2 million. 'Our growth was fueled by across-the-board excellence and the benefits of an investment in a global platform,' Chairman Seth Zachary said. 'We've seen tremendous growth in serving clients internationally.' The firm's Asia practice kicked in work on a $1.3 billion global offering for COSCO, a Chinese shipping company, and represented GZI REIT, a $216 million real estate investment trust, in its listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. There was also increased growth in work for Citigroup internationally. In 2005, the firm added 16 lateral partners and opened new offices in Milan and Palo Alto. The overall equity partnership dropped 6 percent to 191, a decrease Zachary attributes to retirements, and partners going part-time, which results in nonequity status. Many of the California firms that have reported earnings in the past month saw similar contractions of the equity ranks. Irell Managing Partner David Siegel said his firm was pleased to be able to hold on to the gains it's seen in recent years. In 2004, Irell saw a 32 percent increase in profits per partner from the prior year, on a 13 percent jump in gross revenue. 2005 was a 'catch our breath period after those significant increases,' he said. 'We can't report 30 percent growth every year.' The 2004 boost was partially a one-time result of improving collection and billing capabilities, he said. And while the firm significantly increased its contingency work in 2005, some of those possible pay-offs are yet to come, Siegel said. 'It was by any measure a good year,' he said. 'We'd like to see double digit growth continue but that's maybe too much to ask.' Even with revenue per lawyer flat in 2005, Irell's $955,000 is second only to Gibson, Dunn. Irell's average partner compensation - it has no nonequity partners - is higher than all but three California firms. |
|
Date: May 3rd, 2006 4:35 PM Author: marvelous native Updated with AmLaw 100 numbers. It's on Westlaw at 5/2006 AMLAW 1. Let me know if there's any typos, additions, etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5707570) |
|
Date: May 3rd, 2006 4:58 PM Author: galvanic dog poop Any idea how to find out the PPP for smaller firms (short of asking)? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5707728) |
|
Date: May 3rd, 2006 5:02 PM Author: marvelous native Most of them have no interest in disclosing and so they don't. Gunderson is one example; I only have the number because of that Recorder article from December. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5707743) |
|
Date: May 3rd, 2006 5:26 PM Author: galvanic dog poop That's what I was afraid of. Oh, well. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#5707920) |
|
Date: May 3rd, 2006 4:59 PM Author: marvelous native Updated again with PPP including nonequity partners. Also on Westlaw.
And yes, that's $1.160m for Kirkland. They have 192 equity partners and 242 nonequity partners. |
|
Date: November 14th, 2006 10:25 PM Author: awkward marketing idea what exactly is the significance of the assoc/partner ratio for associates?
It seems like the more associates/partner a firm has, the higher its PPP is. This makes sense: if there are few partners and lots of associates to bill out, all the revenue generated by the associate billing gets split up amongst fewer partners.
But what does this mean for associates? Lower partnership prospects? This doesn't seem like too bad of a thing in big NYC firms, since partnership prospects are so low to begin with. Some people have told me it's bad bc they run the associates like members of an assembly line, i.e. the higher the ratio, the more likely it is incoming associates will be forced into doing one highly specific task and won't get to move around, get more generalized knowledge. Is this really the worst consequence of a high assoc/partner ratio? Isn't this really the case at most of these big firms, regardless of the ratio? |
|
Date: November 14th, 2006 10:35 PM Author: marvelous native Higher leverage, less work for you. Lower leverage, more work for you and more responsibility. Which one is better depends on what you're looking for. Just remember you'll probably get paid the same either way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#6993565) |
|
Date: November 14th, 2006 10:48 PM Author: supple nudist pervert international law enforcement agency How can this be true when two of the biggest sweatshops (Cadawalader and Skadden) have the highest leverage, while two humane firms in CA (Irell and Munger) have low leverage? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#6993700) |
|
Date: November 14th, 2006 10:50 PM Author: marvelous native Somebody posted this earlier, but Skadden averages aren't that high. Also they have a minimum of 1600 hours to get the bonus, and not everybody meets it. I think it's a lot easier to get away with that at Skadden than at Irell.
EDIT: Skadden NY average is 2200. http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=516777&forum_id=2#6896887 |
|
Date: November 14th, 2006 11:10 PM Author: Shaky magenta persian indian lodge good stuff the first time around, even more useful now. thanks. bonuses should be great everywhere this year.
Gunderson rocks! |
|
Date: November 15th, 2006 10:03 AM Author: marvelous native I'm pretty sure bonuses at Gunderson aren't all that great anymore. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#6996104) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2006 10:15 AM Author: Shaky magenta persian indian lodge well, according to their management it was actually very good last year, higher than most CA firms. they could be full of it, of course, but associates seemed happy
also, found out that their investment fund you mentioned (i think) is their alternative to 401k matching...they put a bit of money for each associate into certain clients every year |
|
Date: November 15th, 2006 10:19 AM Author: marvelous native Ok, that's good to know. It'd be good if the investment fund was an alternative to 401(k) matching, since I believe there's very few if any firms that do a 401(k) match (and those matches are like less than $1000). I was under the impression that the investment fund was a pretty big part of the bonuses but maybe that's not the case anymore. It'd be less profitable if tech IPOs aren't what they used to be (although maybe getting bought out by Google or BigPharma is the big win nowadays). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#6996138) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2006 7:11 PM Author: Shaky magenta persian indian lodge hmm, did gunderson get pwned from that amlaw list or is it just b/c it's not reported? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#6999581) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2006 7:12 PM Author: marvelous native They don't report. If you look somewhere on this thread, I say where the source is (I think a Recorder article or something). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#6999594) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2006 10:31 AM Author: irradiated hideous property trump supporter Anymore updates? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#6996164) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2006 10:35 AM Author: Exhilarant Point I just took a shit.
Consider yourself informed. |
|
Date: November 15th, 2006 10:37 AM Author: marvelous native I stopped updating because you can just find the full list in the AmLaw 200 issue. Westlaw cite is 6/2006 AMLAW 143. I'll update the OP to reflect this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#6996181) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2006 10:45 AM Author: irradiated hideous property trump supporter Thanks! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#6996198) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2006 2:16 PM Author: irradiated hideous property trump supporter How big of a role should PPP play into our decisions? Not very much, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#6997557) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2006 3:27 PM Author: brilliant tripping french chef space it should be a minor factor. high PPP means that the firm is in good financial health, and it makes it less likely that top partners will leave. In down years, it could mean that you still get a high bonus, but in recent years, most firms have paid the same bonus regardless of PPP. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#6998134) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2006 3:31 PM Author: irradiated hideous property trump supporter True. Revenue per lawyer seems more like a more accurate assessment of firm health, though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=373243&forum_id=2#6998175) |