UIDE TO LEADING LAW FIRMS THE AM LAW 100/200 THE GLOBAL 100 THE A-LIST CORPORATEuide SCORECARD
UIDE
ZEUGHAUSER GROUP’S 2009 POCKET GUIDE TO THE AMERICAN LAWYER RANKINGS
The Zeughauser Group
Dear Clients and Other Friends:
We are pleased to provide you with our ZGuide to Leading Law Firms, including the 2009 Am Law 200 and 2008 Global 100 rankings—our seventh edition of the ZGuide.
In 2008 the economy continued the softening that began in the second half of 2007. Activity at most law firms took a nosedive in the fourth quarter and, as a result, 2008 was the first year in 17 years in which the Am Law 100 declined in both revenue per lawyer and profits per equity partner.
Some pundits have declared the end of the golden era for law firms and the death of the traditional law firm model. While we agree that there will be significant changes in the profession, we believe that the fundamentals on which the traditional law firm model are based—including the promise of a rewarding career, with training and partnership for those lawyers who demonstrate the traits of ownership and find career satisfaction in helping clients achieve their goals—will continue to be valid. Firms with the discipline to adapt to changes in our increasingly competitive and interdependent global marketplace, but that retain their focus on these fundamental values, will lead the industry out of the recession and enjoy still greater strength. Those that don’t will weaken.
• ZGuide • Last year we predicted that the recession and liquidity crisis would make 2008 the most challenging year for many large law firms in over a decade, but we expressed confidence that all firms would enjoy opportunities to invest in growth strategies during the downturn. In this regard, we were privileged in 2008 to work with many of the world’s leading law firms on growth, marketing, and client-development strategies, and to enjoy the ongoing participation of over 50 of the Am Law 100 and 200 firms in our Chair and CMO Roundtables. We believe 2009 will be more challenging still, but also will present greater opportunities for growth. We again look forward to helping our clients marshal their resources in their drive for market leadership.
We wish our clients and other friends in the industry renewed determination, clear vision, great success, and prosperity throughout 2009 and into 2010, times that will challenge us all to be our best.
Sincerely,
Ron Beard Jerome L. Coben
Mozhgan Mizban Norm Rubenstein
Jack Walker Mary K Young
Peter Zeughauser Kent Zimmermann
Lonnie Zwerin
© Incisive Media US Properties, LLC and Zeughauser Group, LLC Chart information reprinted with permission from the April, May, June 2009 and October 2008 issues of The American Lawyer (The Am Law 100, The Am Law 200, Corporate Scorecard, The A-List, and The Global 100). © 2009 Incisive Media US Properties, LLC
• ZGuide • Table of Contents
Methodology The Am Law 200, A-List ...... 2
The Am Law 200 Ranked by Profits Per Equity Partner ...... 4
The Am Law 200 Ranked by Value Per Lawyer...... 24
The 2009 Am Law 100 Forward Looking Strategies: Tough Medicine and Elixirs for Success ...... 34
Methodology The Global 100...... 42
The Global 100 Ranked by Profits Per Equity Partner ...... 44
Assessing the Performance of Client Service Teams...... 54
Methodology The Corporate Scorecard...... 58
The Corporate Scorecard ...... 60 Mergers and Acquisitions...... 60 Private Equity...... 62 IPOs...... 63 Equities by U.S. Corporations...... 63 Investment-Grade Debt ...... 64 High-Yield Debt...... 64 Asset-Backed Securities ...... 65 Mortgage-Backed Securities ...... 66 Municipal Bonds ...... 66 Project Finance ...... 68 REIT Equities ...... 69 REIT Debt ...... 70 Bankruptcies...... 70 Emergences ...... 72
Law Firm Index ...... 75
ZGuide • The Am Law 200
Methodology
The Am Law 200 is reported by staff members at Incisive Media’s publications throughout the United States, including The American Lawyer, The Connecticut Law Tribune, Daily Business Review (Miami), Fulton County Daily Report (Atlanta), The Legal Intelligencer (Philadelphia), Legal Times (Washington, DC), The New Jersey Law Journal, New York Law Journal, The Recorder (San Francisco), and Texas Lawyer.
Most law firms provide their financials voluntarily for this report, but all data, whether it comes officially from the firm or not, is investigated by reporters.
Definitions Gross Revenue is fee income from legal work only. It does not include disbursements or income from nonlegal ancillary businesses. In all cases, the revenue and profit figures listed are for the firm’s most recently completed fiscal year. Most Am Law firms are on a calendar fiscal year. Net is compensation paid to equity partners.
Equity Partners are those who file a Schedule K-1 tax form and receive no more than half their compensation on a fixed-income basis. Nonequity Partners are those who receive more than half their compensation on a fixed basis. To ensure that profits per partner and leverage data are consistent, partners without equity shares in the firm’s profits (or who do not have more than a partial equity share in the firm’s profits) are not counted as partners. Similarly, retired partners and of counsel are not counted as partners, nor are payments made to them counted in net operating income.
Lawyer numbers are for full-time equivalent lawyers for firms whose fiscal year ends after August 31, 2008, and are provided as of that date. If the firm’s fiscal year ended between March 31 and August 31, 2008, the firm was asked to give the end of the firm’s fiscal year.
• ZGuide This is intended to exclude first-year associates, who typically start in the fall but take several months to produce revenue.
Calculations • Gross Revenue is rounded to the nearest $500,000. Methodology • Profits Per Partner, Revenue Per Lawyer, and Average Com- pensation for All Partners are rounded to the nearest $5,000. • Revenue Per Lawyer (RPL) is calculated by dividing gross rev- enue by the number of lawyers. • Profits Per Partner (PPP) is calculated by dividing net operating income by the number of equity partners. • Compensation Average, All Partners is the net operat- ing income plus compensation to nonequity partners, divided by the number of equity and nonequity partners. • Value Per Lawyer (VPL) is calculated by dividing the Com- pensation Average, All Partners by the total number of lawyers. That number is then divided by $10 million to see how many lawyers it takes to generate that amount.
Location of Firms Some firms are identified as “international” or “national,” rather than identifying them by city, according to the percentage of the firm’s attorneys who work in various regions ofthe country and the percentage that work outside the United States. Those breakouts are obtained from the most recent National Law Journal NLJ 250 survey. If 40 percent or more of the firm’s lawyers were located outside the U.S., the firm is identified as “international.” If no more than 45 percent of the firm’s attorneys were located in any one region of the country, the firm is identified as “national.”
The A-List The A-List, comprised of just 20 firms, is determined by rankings in four surveys—The American Lawyer’s Revenue Per Lawyer (from The Am Law 200); Pro Bono; and Midlevel Associate Survey rankings; and The Minority Law Journal'’s Diversity Scorecard rankings. Rankings in each survey are converted into points, using an inversion calculation where a firm ranked Number One receives 200 points, and a firm ranked Number 200 receives just one point. To determine each firm’s score, points are doubled for both Revenue Per Lawyer and Pro Bono rankings and then added to the scores for the Midlevel Associate Survey and Diversity Scorecard rankings.
Additional information about the A-List is available on americanlawyer.com and in the July issue of The American Lawyer.u
ZGuide • The Am Law 200 The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Partner
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 1 1 $4,010,000 $530,000,000 55 $2,455,000 1 $4,010,000 216 Lawyers, 81 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges 2 5 $3,335,000 $442,000,000 66 $1,105,000 11 $2,690,000 400 Lawyers, 78 Equity Partners, 26 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Boies, Schiller & Flexner 3 3 $3,065,000 $295,000,000 92 $1,180,000 6 $1,360,000 250 Lawyers, 32 Equity Partners, 68 Nonequity Partners, National
4 4 Sullivan & Cromwell I $2,940,000 $985,000,000 15 $1,480,000 2 $2,940,000 665 Lawyers, 170 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
5 8 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison I $2,655,000 $692,000,000 37 $1,070,000 13 $2,655,000 647 Lawyers, 114 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Cravath, Swaine & Moore 6 2 $2,520,000 $532,500,000 52 $1,210,000 3 $2,520,000 440 Lawyers, 90 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 7 6 $2,475,000 $904,000,000 25 $1,130,000 10 $2,475,000 801 Lawyers, 173 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
8 11 Kirkland & Ellis I $2,470,000 $1,400,000,000 7 $1,050,000 15 $1,330,000 1,333 Lawyers, 235 Equity Partners, 310 Nonequity Partners, National
9 19 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton I $2,400,000 $965,000,000 18 $970,000 23 $2,400,000 993 Lawyers, 191 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, International
Schulte Roth & Zabel 10 12 $2,290,000 $420,000,000 68 $970,000 23 $2,290,000 434 Lawyers, 82 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
11 20 Weil, Gotshal & Manges I $2,270,000 $1,231,000,000 9 $1,035,000 16 $1,770,000 1,190 Lawyers, 184 Equity Partners, 128 Nonequity Partners, New York
12 15 Debevoise & Plimpton I $2,225,000 $761,000,000 33 $1,205,000 5 $2,225,000 631 Lawyers, 143 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman 13 21 $2,215,000 $221,000,000 123 $830,000 60 $1,605,000 267 Lawyers, 45 Equity Partners, 25 Nonequity Partners, New York
Dechert 14 13 $2,145,000 $816,000,000 28 $915,000 37 $1,485,000 891 Lawyers, 152 Equity Partners, 108 Nonequity Partners, National
Cahill Gordon & Reindel 15 8 $2,120,000 $247,000,000 112 $930,000 33 $2,025,000 265 Lawyers, 64 Equity Partners, 6 Nonequity Partners, New York
16 10 Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy I $2,115,000 $621,500,000 42 $1,070,000 13 $2,035,000 581 Lawyers, 122 Equity Partners, 23 Nonequity Partners, New York
Willkie Farr & Gallagher 16 18 $2,115,000 $583,500,000 46 $1,000,000 21 $2,115,000 583 Lawyers, 133 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 18 16 $2,065,000 $2,200,000,000 1 $1,105,000 11 $2,065,000 1,994 Lawyers, 440 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, National
19 23 Irell & Manella I $1,960,000 $231,000,000 120 $1,165,000 8 $1,960,000 199 Lawyers, 74 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
20 14 Davis Polk & Wardwell I $1,905,000 $789,000,000 30 $1,210,000 3 $1,905,000 652 Lawyers, 167 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
• ZGuide Firms noted with a star (I) are on The American Lawyer’s “A-List.” (See the methodology on pages 2 and 3.) Firms ranked 101-200 in The Am Law 200 are in bold.
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 1 1 $4,010,000 $530,000,000 55 $2,455,000 1 $4,010,000 216 Lawyers, 81 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges 2 5 $3,335,000 $442,000,000 66 $1,105,000 11 $2,690,000 400 Lawyers, 78 Equity Partners, 26 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Boies, Schiller & Flexner 3 3 $3,065,000 $295,000,000 92 $1,180,000 6 $1,360,000 250 Lawyers, 32 Equity Partners, 68 Nonequity Partners, National
4 4 Sullivan & Cromwell I $2,940,000 $985,000,000 15 $1,480,000 2 $2,940,000 665 Lawyers, 170 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
5 8 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison I $2,655,000 $692,000,000 37 $1,070,000 13 $2,655,000 647 Lawyers, 114 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Cravath, Swaine & Moore 6 2 $2,520,000 $532,500,000 52 $1,210,000 3 $2,520,000 440 Lawyers, 90 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 7 6 $2,475,000 $904,000,000 25 $1,130,000 10 $2,475,000 801 Lawyers, 173 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
8 11 Kirkland & Ellis I $2,470,000 $1,400,000,000 7 $1,050,000 15 $1,330,000 1,333 Lawyers, 235 Equity Partners, 310 Nonequity Partners, National
9 19 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton I $2,400,000 $965,000,000 18 $970,000 23 $2,400,000 993 Lawyers, 191 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, International
Schulte Roth & Zabel 10 12 $2,290,000 $420,000,000 68 $970,000 23 $2,290,000 434 Lawyers, 82 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
11 20 Weil, Gotshal & Manges I $2,270,000 $1,231,000,000 9 $1,035,000 16 $1,770,000 1,190 Lawyers, 184 Equity Partners, 128 Nonequity Partners, New York
12 15 Debevoise & Plimpton I $2,225,000 $761,000,000 33 $1,205,000 5 $2,225,000 631 Lawyers, 143 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman 13 21 $2,215,000 $221,000,000 123 $830,000 60 $1,605,000 267 Lawyers, 45 Equity Partners, 25 Nonequity Partners, New York
Dechert 14 13 $2,145,000 $816,000,000 28 $915,000 37 $1,485,000 891 Lawyers, 152 Equity Partners, 108 Nonequity Partners, National
Cahill Gordon & Reindel 15 8 $2,120,000 $247,000,000 112 $930,000 33 $2,025,000 265 Lawyers, 64 Equity Partners, 6 Nonequity Partners, New York
16 10 Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy I $2,115,000 $621,500,000 42 $1,070,000 13 $2,035,000 581 Lawyers, 122 Equity Partners, 23 Nonequity Partners, New York
Willkie Farr & Gallagher 16 18 $2,115,000 $583,500,000 46 $1,000,000 21 $2,115,000 583 Lawyers, 133 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 18 16 $2,065,000 $2,200,000,000 1 $1,105,000 11 $2,065,000 1,994 Lawyers, 440 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, National
19 23 Irell & Manella I $1,960,000 $231,000,000 120 $1,165,000 8 $1,960,000 199 Lawyers, 74 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
20 14 Davis Polk & Wardwell I $1,905,000 $789,000,000 30 $1,210,000 3 $1,905,000 652 Lawyers, 167 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
ZGuide • The Am Law 200 The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Partner
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker 21 22 $1,900,000 $986,000,000 14 $930,000 33 $1,620,000 1,062 Lawyers, 203 Equity Partners, 66 Nonequity Partners, National
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft 22 7 $1,885,000 $506,000,000 57 $965,000 26 $1,580,000 523 Lawyers, 77 Equity Partners, 28 Nonequity Partners, New York
23 24 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher I $1,875,000 $957,000,000 20 $1,035,000 16 $1,790,000 923 Lawyers, 274 Equity Partners, 18 Nonequity Partners, National
24 17 Latham & Watkins I $1,805,000 $1,923,000,000 3 $915,000 37 $1,550,000 2,102 Lawyers, 436 Equity Partners, 122 Nonequity Partners, National
Shearman & Sterling 25 26 $1,665,000 $876,000,000 26 $1,020,000 20 $1,560,000 858 Lawyers, 182 Equity Partners, 20 Nonequity Partners, International
White & Case 26 27 $1,590,000 $1,467,000,000 6 $705,000 93 $1,370,000 2,074 Lawyers, 305 Equity Partners, 100 Nonequity Partners, International
Dewey & LeBoeuf 1 27 — $1,550,000 $1,030,500,000 13 $815,000 65 $1,140,000 1,268 Lawyers, 200 Equity Partners, 150 Nonequity Partners, New York
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel 28 30 $1,540,000 $299,000,000 90 $900,000 42 $1,275,000 332 Lawyers, 60 Equity Partners, 39 Nonequity Partners, New York
29 29 O'Melveny & Myers I $1,535,000 $907,500,000 24 $970,000 23 $1,455,000 935 Lawyers, 224 Equity Partners, 21 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
McDermott Will & Emery 30 36 $1,520,000 $966,000,000 17 $915,000 37 $920,000 1,055 Lawyers, 266 Equity Partners, 335 Nonequity Partners, National
Loeb & Loeb 31 51 $1,465,000 $242,500,000 113 $830,000 60 $815,000 292 Lawyers, 53 Equity Partners, 95 Nonequity Partners, New York
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 32 39 $1,450,000 $1,120,500,000 12 $820,000 64 $1,045,000 1,363 Lawyers, 252 Equity Partners, 208 Nonequity Partners, National
Sidley Austin 33 42 $1,430,000 $1,489,500,000 5 $875,000 44 $1,030,000 1,702 Lawyers, 332 Equity Partners, 310 Nonequity Partners, National
Bingham McCutchen 34 43 $1,420,000 $767,000,000 32 $950,000 28 $960,000 808 Lawyers, 137 Equity Partners, 152 Nonequity Partners, National
Goodwin Procter 35 35 $1,415,000 $690,500,000 38 $860,000 49 $1,085,000 805 Lawyers, 193 Equity Partners, 112 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 36 60 $1,405,000 $780,500,000 31 $965,000 26 $1,120,000 807 Lawyers, 157 Equity Partners, 120 Nonequity Partners, National
Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro 37 66 $1,400,000 $118,000,000 183 $755,000 76 $1,400,000 156 Lawyers, 48 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Kaye Scholer 38 37 $1,385,000 $450,500,000 65 $905,000 41 $1,345,000 497 Lawyers, 135 Equity Partners, 10 Nonequity Partners, New York
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 38 38 $1,385,000 $532,000,000 53 $845,000 56 $1,195,000 631 Lawyers, 125 Equity Partners, 41 Nonequity Partners, Palo Alto
Ropes & Gray 40 44 $1,375,000 $797,000,000 29 $975,000 22 $1,375,000 819 Lawyers, 253 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Boston
• ZGuide 1 Because of the merger of Dewey Ballantine and LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae in October 2007, there is no year-over-year comparison for the firm.
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker 21 22 $1,900,000 $986,000,000 14 $930,000 33 $1,620,000 1,062 Lawyers, 203 Equity Partners, 66 Nonequity Partners, National
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft 22 7 $1,885,000 $506,000,000 57 $965,000 26 $1,580,000 523 Lawyers, 77 Equity Partners, 28 Nonequity Partners, New York
23 24 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher I $1,875,000 $957,000,000 20 $1,035,000 16 $1,790,000 923 Lawyers, 274 Equity Partners, 18 Nonequity Partners, National
24 17 Latham & Watkins I $1,805,000 $1,923,000,000 3 $915,000 37 $1,550,000 2,102 Lawyers, 436 Equity Partners, 122 Nonequity Partners, National
Shearman & Sterling 25 26 $1,665,000 $876,000,000 26 $1,020,000 20 $1,560,000 858 Lawyers, 182 Equity Partners, 20 Nonequity Partners, International
White & Case 26 27 $1,590,000 $1,467,000,000 6 $705,000 93 $1,370,000 2,074 Lawyers, 305 Equity Partners, 100 Nonequity Partners, International
Dewey & LeBoeuf 1 27 — $1,550,000 $1,030,500,000 13 $815,000 65 $1,140,000 1,268 Lawyers, 200 Equity Partners, 150 Nonequity Partners, New York
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel 28 30 $1,540,000 $299,000,000 90 $900,000 42 $1,275,000 332 Lawyers, 60 Equity Partners, 39 Nonequity Partners, New York
29 29 O'Melveny & Myers I $1,535,000 $907,500,000 24 $970,000 23 $1,455,000 935 Lawyers, 224 Equity Partners, 21 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
McDermott Will & Emery 30 36 $1,520,000 $966,000,000 17 $915,000 37 $920,000 1,055 Lawyers, 266 Equity Partners, 335 Nonequity Partners, National
Loeb & Loeb 31 51 $1,465,000 $242,500,000 113 $830,000 60 $815,000 292 Lawyers, 53 Equity Partners, 95 Nonequity Partners, New York
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 32 39 $1,450,000 $1,120,500,000 12 $820,000 64 $1,045,000 1,363 Lawyers, 252 Equity Partners, 208 Nonequity Partners, National
Sidley Austin 33 42 $1,430,000 $1,489,500,000 5 $875,000 44 $1,030,000 1,702 Lawyers, 332 Equity Partners, 310 Nonequity Partners, National
Bingham McCutchen 34 43 $1,420,000 $767,000,000 32 $950,000 28 $960,000 808 Lawyers, 137 Equity Partners, 152 Nonequity Partners, National
Goodwin Procter 35 35 $1,415,000 $690,500,000 38 $860,000 49 $1,085,000 805 Lawyers, 193 Equity Partners, 112 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 36 60 $1,405,000 $780,500,000 31 $965,000 26 $1,120,000 807 Lawyers, 157 Equity Partners, 120 Nonequity Partners, National
Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro 37 66 $1,400,000 $118,000,000 183 $755,000 76 $1,400,000 156 Lawyers, 48 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Kaye Scholer 38 37 $1,385,000 $450,500,000 65 $905,000 41 $1,345,000 497 Lawyers, 135 Equity Partners, 10 Nonequity Partners, New York
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 38 38 $1,385,000 $532,000,000 53 $845,000 56 $1,195,000 631 Lawyers, 125 Equity Partners, 41 Nonequity Partners, Palo Alto
Ropes & Gray 40 44 $1,375,000 $797,000,000 29 $975,000 22 $1,375,000 819 Lawyers, 253 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Boston
ZGuide • The Am Law 200 The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Partner
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Baker Botts 41 48 $1,365,000 $613,500,000 43 $825,000 62 $1,125,000 745 Lawyers, 199 Equity Partners, 71 Nonequity Partners, Houston
Proskauer Rose 41 34 $1,365,000 $634,000,000 41 $915,000 37 $1,250,000 692 Lawyers, 162 Equity Partners, 28 Nonequity Partners, New York
43 45 Hughes Hubbard & Reed I $1,340,000 $252,000,000 111 $945,000 29 $1,250,000 267 Lawyers, 68 Equity Partners, 10 Nonequity Partners, New York
Cooley Godward Kronish 44 40 $1,320,000 $552,000,000 51 $855,000 52 $1,085,000 645 Lawyers, 154 Equity Partners, 70 Nonequity Partners, Palo Alto
44 45 Munger, Tolles & Olson I $1,320,000 $207,000,000 129 $1,170,000 7 $1,320,000 177 Lawyers, 88 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
46 28 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe I $1,315,000 $835,000,000 27 $855,000 52 $985,000 977 Lawyers, 173 Equity Partners, 160 Nonequity Partners, National
Greenberg Traurig 47 47 $1,310,000 $1,204,000,000 10 $695,000 96 $725,000 1,734 Lawyers, 294 Equity Partners, 530 Nonequity Partners, National
Vinson & Elkins 47 62 $1,310,000 $590,500,000 45 $865,000 47 $1,035,000 683 Lawyers, 189 Equity Partners, 89 Nonequity Partners, Houston
49 66 Covington & Burling I $1,300,000 $531,000,000 54 $945,000 29 $1,300,000 561 Lawyers, 181 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
49 78 Howrey I $1,300,000 $573,000,000 49 $870,000 46 $875,000 659 Lawyers, 138 Equity Partners, 148 Nonequity Partners, National
DLA Piper US 2 51 58 $1,295,000 $1,178,000,000 11 $855,000 52 $800,000 1,380 Lawyers, 237 Equity Partners, 374 Nonequity Partners, National
Winston & Strawn 52 50 $1,285,000 $745,000,000 34 $860,000 49 $880,000 867 Lawyers, 184 Equity Partners, 210 Nonequity Partners, National
King & Spalding 53 41 $1,235,000 $652,000,000 40 $810,000 67 $850,000 805 Lawyers, 153 Equity Partners, 135 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson 54 31 $1,230,000 $488,500,000 60 $860,000 49 $1,230,000 569 Lawyers, 155 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Baker & McKenzie 55 71 $1,205,000 $2,188,000,000 2 $605,000 133 $1,205,000 3,626 Lawyers, 711 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, International
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton 56 59 $1,200,000 $352,000,000 77 $765,000 74 $805,000 459 Lawyers, 76 Equity Partners, 110 Nonequity Partners, San Francisco
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 57 48 $1,185,000 $277,000,000 99 $790,000 72 $1,185,000 350 Lawyers, 102 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Herrick, Feinstein 58 60 $1,165,000 $144,500,000 164 $850,000 55 $890,000 171 Lawyers, 39 Equity Partners, 27 Nonequity Partners, New York
Hogan & Hartson 58 65 $1,165,000 $922,500,000 22 $835,000 59 $870,000 1,107 Lawyers, 292 Equity Partners, 202 Nonequity Partners, National
Choate, Hall & Stewart 60 55 $1,150,000 $152,000,000 158 $940,000 31 $890,000 162 Lawyers, 53 Equity Partners, 32 Nonequity Partners, Boston
• ZGuide 2 DLA Piper is structured as a set of alliances, so the results are for the U.S. operation only.
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Baker Botts 41 48 $1,365,000 $613,500,000 43 $825,000 62 $1,125,000 745 Lawyers, 199 Equity Partners, 71 Nonequity Partners, Houston
Proskauer Rose 41 34 $1,365,000 $634,000,000 41 $915,000 37 $1,250,000 692 Lawyers, 162 Equity Partners, 28 Nonequity Partners, New York
43 45 Hughes Hubbard & Reed I $1,340,000 $252,000,000 111 $945,000 29 $1,250,000 267 Lawyers, 68 Equity Partners, 10 Nonequity Partners, New York
Cooley Godward Kronish 44 40 $1,320,000 $552,000,000 51 $855,000 52 $1,085,000 645 Lawyers, 154 Equity Partners, 70 Nonequity Partners, Palo Alto
44 45 Munger, Tolles & Olson I $1,320,000 $207,000,000 129 $1,170,000 7 $1,320,000 177 Lawyers, 88 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
46 28 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe I $1,315,000 $835,000,000 27 $855,000 52 $985,000 977 Lawyers, 173 Equity Partners, 160 Nonequity Partners, National
Greenberg Traurig 47 47 $1,310,000 $1,204,000,000 10 $695,000 96 $725,000 1,734 Lawyers, 294 Equity Partners, 530 Nonequity Partners, National
Vinson & Elkins 47 62 $1,310,000 $590,500,000 45 $865,000 47 $1,035,000 683 Lawyers, 189 Equity Partners, 89 Nonequity Partners, Houston
49 66 Covington & Burling I $1,300,000 $531,000,000 54 $945,000 29 $1,300,000 561 Lawyers, 181 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
49 78 Howrey I $1,300,000 $573,000,000 49 $870,000 46 $875,000 659 Lawyers, 138 Equity Partners, 148 Nonequity Partners, National
DLA Piper US 2 51 58 $1,295,000 $1,178,000,000 11 $855,000 52 $800,000 1,380 Lawyers, 237 Equity Partners, 374 Nonequity Partners, National
Winston & Strawn 52 50 $1,285,000 $745,000,000 34 $860,000 49 $880,000 867 Lawyers, 184 Equity Partners, 210 Nonequity Partners, National
King & Spalding 53 41 $1,235,000 $652,000,000 40 $810,000 67 $850,000 805 Lawyers, 153 Equity Partners, 135 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson 54 31 $1,230,000 $488,500,000 60 $860,000 49 $1,230,000 569 Lawyers, 155 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Baker & McKenzie 55 71 $1,205,000 $2,188,000,000 2 $605,000 133 $1,205,000 3,626 Lawyers, 711 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, International
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton 56 59 $1,200,000 $352,000,000 77 $765,000 74 $805,000 459 Lawyers, 76 Equity Partners, 110 Nonequity Partners, San Francisco
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 57 48 $1,185,000 $277,000,000 99 $790,000 72 $1,185,000 350 Lawyers, 102 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Herrick, Feinstein 58 60 $1,165,000 $144,500,000 164 $850,000 55 $890,000 171 Lawyers, 39 Equity Partners, 27 Nonequity Partners, New York
Hogan & Hartson 58 65 $1,165,000 $922,500,000 22 $835,000 59 $870,000 1,107 Lawyers, 292 Equity Partners, 202 Nonequity Partners, National
Choate, Hall & Stewart 60 55 $1,150,000 $152,000,000 158 $940,000 31 $890,000 162 Lawyers, 53 Equity Partners, 32 Nonequity Partners, Boston
ZGuide • The Am Law 200 The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Partner
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Fish & Richardson 61 62 $1,145,000 $398,500,000 70 $890,000 43 $850,000 447 Lawyers, 103 Equity Partners, 68 Nonequity Partners, National
Chadbourne & Parke 62 57 $1,125,000 $286,000,000 95 $715,000 90 $905,000 401 Lawyers, 78 Equity Partners, 38 Nonequity Partners, New York
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner 63 75 $1,120,000 $359,000,000 74 $1,035,000 16 $945,000 348 Lawyers, 103 Equity Partners, 37 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Katten Muchin Rosenman 64 68 $1,110,000 $456,000,000 64 $750,000 78 $725,000 608 Lawyers, 143 Equity Partners, 165 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Mayer Brown 64 55 $1,110,000 $1,294,000,000 8 $720,000 89 $725,000 1,801 Lawyers, 324 Equity Partners, 330 Nonequity Partners, International
66 52 Morrison & Foerster I $1,100,000 $911,000,000 23 $875,000 44 $940,000 1,040 Lawyers, 247 Equity Partners, 94 Nonequity Partners, San Francisco
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler 66 70 $1,100,000 $147,500,000 160 $935,000 32 $1,100,000 158 Lawyers, 56 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Williams & Connolly 68 73 $1,080,000 $266,000,000 104 $1,165,000 8 $1,080,000 228 Lawyers, 102 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
68 71 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr I $1,080,000 $955,000,000 21 $1,025,000 19 $1,080,000 930 Lawyers, 329 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, National
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi 70 84 $1,045,000 $195,000,000 135 $815,000 65 $1,000,000 239 Lawyers, 86 Equity Partners, 11 Nonequity Partners, Minneapolis
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle 71 89 $1,025,000 $125,000,000 177 $570,000 141 $680,000 220 Lawyers, 29 Equity Partners, 31 Nonequity Partners, New York
McKee Nelson 72 62 $1,020,000 $160,000,000 152 $925,000 35 $1,020,000 173 Lawyers, 64 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Kelley Drye & Warren 73 53 $1,015,000 $233,000,000 118 $740,000 80 $685,000 315 Lawyers, 65 Equity Partners, 65 Nonequity Partners, New York
Crowell & Moring 74 103 $1,000,000 $296,000,000 91 $740,000 80 $745,000 399 Lawyers, 87 Equity Partners, 66 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Dickstein Shapiro 75 78 $985,000 $312,000,000 87 $825,000 62 $745,000 379 Lawyers, 82 Equity Partners, 77 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 76 83 $975,000 $576,000,000 48 $805,000 69 $750,000 716 Lawyers, 176 Equity Partners, 145 Nonequity Partners, National
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell 3 77 — $955,000 $401,000,000 69 $730,000 85 $645,000 548 Lawyers, 136 Equity Partners, 165 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Shook, Hardy & Bacon 78 88 $950,000 $330,500,000 83 $685,000 104 $680,000 482 Lawyers, 106 Equity Partners, 87 Nonequity Partners, Kansas City, MO
Wiley Rein 78 94 $950,000 $198,000,000 131 $695,000 96 $910,000 284 Lawyers, 63 Equity Partners, 59 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
80 69 Lowenstein Sandler $945,000 $179,000,000 143 $730,000 85 $800,000 245 Lawyers, 69 Equity Partners, 23 Nonequity Partners, Roseland, NJ
10 • ZGuide 3 Because of the merger of Locke Liddell & Sapp and Lord, Bissell & Brook in October 2007, there is no year-over-year comparison for the firm.
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Fish & Richardson 61 62 $1,145,000 $398,500,000 70 $890,000 43 $850,000 447 Lawyers, 103 Equity Partners, 68 Nonequity Partners, National
Chadbourne & Parke 62 57 $1,125,000 $286,000,000 95 $715,000 90 $905,000 401 Lawyers, 78 Equity Partners, 38 Nonequity Partners, New York
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner 63 75 $1,120,000 $359,000,000 74 $1,035,000 16 $945,000 348 Lawyers, 103 Equity Partners, 37 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Katten Muchin Rosenman 64 68 $1,110,000 $456,000,000 64 $750,000 78 $725,000 608 Lawyers, 143 Equity Partners, 165 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Mayer Brown 64 55 $1,110,000 $1,294,000,000 8 $720,000 89 $725,000 1,801 Lawyers, 324 Equity Partners, 330 Nonequity Partners, International
66 52 Morrison & Foerster I $1,100,000 $911,000,000 23 $875,000 44 $940,000 1,040 Lawyers, 247 Equity Partners, 94 Nonequity Partners, San Francisco
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler 66 70 $1,100,000 $147,500,000 160 $935,000 32 $1,100,000 158 Lawyers, 56 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Williams & Connolly 68 73 $1,080,000 $266,000,000 104 $1,165,000 8 $1,080,000 228 Lawyers, 102 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
68 71 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr I $1,080,000 $955,000,000 21 $1,025,000 19 $1,080,000 930 Lawyers, 329 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, National
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi 70 84 $1,045,000 $195,000,000 135 $815,000 65 $1,000,000 239 Lawyers, 86 Equity Partners, 11 Nonequity Partners, Minneapolis
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle 71 89 $1,025,000 $125,000,000 177 $570,000 141 $680,000 220 Lawyers, 29 Equity Partners, 31 Nonequity Partners, New York
McKee Nelson 72 62 $1,020,000 $160,000,000 152 $925,000 35 $1,020,000 173 Lawyers, 64 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Kelley Drye & Warren 73 53 $1,015,000 $233,000,000 118 $740,000 80 $685,000 315 Lawyers, 65 Equity Partners, 65 Nonequity Partners, New York
Crowell & Moring 74 103 $1,000,000 $296,000,000 91 $740,000 80 $745,000 399 Lawyers, 87 Equity Partners, 66 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Dickstein Shapiro 75 78 $985,000 $312,000,000 87 $825,000 62 $745,000 379 Lawyers, 82 Equity Partners, 77 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 76 83 $975,000 $576,000,000 48 $805,000 69 $750,000 716 Lawyers, 176 Equity Partners, 145 Nonequity Partners, National
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell 3 77 — $955,000 $401,000,000 69 $730,000 85 $645,000 548 Lawyers, 136 Equity Partners, 165 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Shook, Hardy & Bacon 78 88 $950,000 $330,500,000 83 $685,000 104 $680,000 482 Lawyers, 106 Equity Partners, 87 Nonequity Partners, Kansas City, MO
Wiley Rein 78 94 $950,000 $198,000,000 131 $695,000 96 $910,000 284 Lawyers, 63 Equity Partners, 59 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
80 69 Lowenstein Sandler $945,000 $179,000,000 143 $730,000 85 $800,000 245 Lawyers, 69 Equity Partners, 23 Nonequity Partners, Roseland, NJ
ZGuide • 11 The Am Law 200 The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Partner
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Reed Smith 81 78 $940,000 $979,500,000 16 $660,000 114 $615,000 1,484 Lawyers, 303 Equity Partners, 383 Nonequity Partners, National
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips 82 54 $925,000 $264,500,000 106 $735,000 83 $535,000 360 Lawyers, 57 Equity Partners, 131 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Alston & Bird 83 78 $915,000 $552,500,000 50 $710,000 91 $690,000 777 Lawyers, 151 Equity Partners, 156 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy 83 25 $915,000 $257,000,000 108 $920,000 36 $915,000 280 Lawyers, 54 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, National
85 93 Arnold & Porter I $910,000 $513,000,000 56 $865,000 47 $910,000 594 Lawyers, 205 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Andrews Kurth 86 95 $905,000 $266,000,000 104 $735,000 83 $660,000 362 Lawyers, 87 Equity Partners, 95 Nonequity Partners, Houston
Steptoe & Johnson 86 85 $905,000 $356,500,000 75 $845,000 56 $905,000 421 Lawyers, 151 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Foley & Lardner 88 90 $880,000 $731,000,000 35 $785,000 73 $635,000 934 Lawyers, 224 Equity Partners, 253 Nonequity Partners, Milwaukee
Stevens & Lee 89 100 $865,000 $109,500,000 190 $675,000 108 $685,000 163 Lawyers, 72 Equity Partners, 37 Nonequity Partners, Reading, PA
Bracewell & Giuliani 90 123 $860,000 $275,500,000 101 $650,000 118 $680,000 423 Lawyers, 117 Equity Partners, 84 Nonequity Partners, Houston
Fulbright & Jaworski 90 116 $860,000 $694,500,000 36 $760,000 75 $840,000 916 Lawyers, 335 Equity Partners, 25 Nonequity Partners, Houston
K&L Gates 4 92 108 $855,000 $959,500,000 19 $620,000 126 $535,000 1,552 Lawyers, 284 Equity Partners, 495 Nonequity Partners, National
Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels 93 95 $845,000 $143,500,000 166 $710,000 91 $645,000 202 Lawyers, 49 Equity Partners, 41 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Thompson & Knight 93 101 $845,000 $233,500,000 117 $590,000 135 $645,000 396 Lawyers, 99 Equity Partners, 74 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Foley Hoag 95 111 $840,000 $154,000,000 157 $705,000 93 $675,000 219 Lawyers, 59 Equity Partners, 31 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Chapman and Cutler 96 126 $835,000 $140,500,000 168 $680,000 106 $670,000 207 Lawyers, 79 Equity Partners, 34 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Jenner & Block 96 115 $835,000 $347,000,000 81 $795,000 71 $720,000 437 Lawyers, 154 Equity Partners, 61 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo 96 73 $835,000 $280,000,000 97 $680,000 106 $565,000 412 Lawyers, 71 Equity Partners, 134 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Morris, Manning & Martin 96 105 $835,000 $99,000,000 199 $645,000 119 $685,000 154 Lawyers, 41 Equity Partners, 33 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Sills Cummis & Gross 96 132 $835,000 $103,500,000 196 $645,000 119 $705,000 160 Lawyers, 39 Equity Partners, 22 Nonequity Partners, Newark
12 • ZGuide 4 Firm changed its name to K&L Gates from Kirkpatrick Lockhart Preston Gates & Ellis in July 2008.
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Reed Smith 81 78 $940,000 $979,500,000 16 $660,000 114 $615,000 1,484 Lawyers, 303 Equity Partners, 383 Nonequity Partners, National
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips 82 54 $925,000 $264,500,000 106 $735,000 83 $535,000 360 Lawyers, 57 Equity Partners, 131 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Alston & Bird 83 78 $915,000 $552,500,000 50 $710,000 91 $690,000 777 Lawyers, 151 Equity Partners, 156 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy 83 25 $915,000 $257,000,000 108 $920,000 36 $915,000 280 Lawyers, 54 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, National
85 93 Arnold & Porter I $910,000 $513,000,000 56 $865,000 47 $910,000 594 Lawyers, 205 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Andrews Kurth 86 95 $905,000 $266,000,000 104 $735,000 83 $660,000 362 Lawyers, 87 Equity Partners, 95 Nonequity Partners, Houston
Steptoe & Johnson 86 85 $905,000 $356,500,000 75 $845,000 56 $905,000 421 Lawyers, 151 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Foley & Lardner 88 90 $880,000 $731,000,000 35 $785,000 73 $635,000 934 Lawyers, 224 Equity Partners, 253 Nonequity Partners, Milwaukee
Stevens & Lee 89 100 $865,000 $109,500,000 190 $675,000 108 $685,000 163 Lawyers, 72 Equity Partners, 37 Nonequity Partners, Reading, PA
Bracewell & Giuliani 90 123 $860,000 $275,500,000 101 $650,000 118 $680,000 423 Lawyers, 117 Equity Partners, 84 Nonequity Partners, Houston
Fulbright & Jaworski 90 116 $860,000 $694,500,000 36 $760,000 75 $840,000 916 Lawyers, 335 Equity Partners, 25 Nonequity Partners, Houston
K&L Gates 4 92 108 $855,000 $959,500,000 19 $620,000 126 $535,000 1,552 Lawyers, 284 Equity Partners, 495 Nonequity Partners, National
Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels 93 95 $845,000 $143,500,000 166 $710,000 91 $645,000 202 Lawyers, 49 Equity Partners, 41 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Thompson & Knight 93 101 $845,000 $233,500,000 117 $590,000 135 $645,000 396 Lawyers, 99 Equity Partners, 74 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Foley Hoag 95 111 $840,000 $154,000,000 157 $705,000 93 $675,000 219 Lawyers, 59 Equity Partners, 31 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Chapman and Cutler 96 126 $835,000 $140,500,000 168 $680,000 106 $670,000 207 Lawyers, 79 Equity Partners, 34 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Jenner & Block 96 115 $835,000 $347,000,000 81 $795,000 71 $720,000 437 Lawyers, 154 Equity Partners, 61 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo 96 73 $835,000 $280,000,000 97 $680,000 106 $565,000 412 Lawyers, 71 Equity Partners, 134 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Morris, Manning & Martin 96 105 $835,000 $99,000,000 199 $645,000 119 $685,000 154 Lawyers, 41 Equity Partners, 33 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Sills Cummis & Gross 96 132 $835,000 $103,500,000 196 $645,000 119 $705,000 160 Lawyers, 39 Equity Partners, 22 Nonequity Partners, Newark
ZGuide • 13 The Am Law 200 The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Partner
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Kenyon & Kenyon 101 117 $830,000 $138,000,000 169 $840,000 58 $765,000 164 Lawyers, 46 Equity Partners, 8 Nonequity Partners, New York
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan 101 97 $830,000 $289,000,000 93 $740,000 80 $675,000 390 Lawyers, 109 Equity Partners, 64 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Hunton & Williams 103 98 $825,000 $668,000,000 39 $695,000 96 $705,000 960 Lawyers, 277 Equity Partners, 123 Nonequity Partners, Richmond
Jones Day 104 114 $810,000 $1,540,000,000 4 $655,000 116 $810,000 2,348 Lawyers, 772 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, National
Patton Boggs 104 105 $810,000 $348,500,000 80 $675,000 108 $635,000 518 Lawyers, 119 Equity Partners, 111 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Fenwick & West 106 77 $805,000 $196,000,000 134 $725,000 88 $805,000 271 Lawyers, 92 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Mountain View, CA
Moore & Van Allen 106 87 $805,000 $164,500,000 148 $575,000 139 $550,000 286 Lawyers, 75 Equity Partners, 71 Nonequity Partners, Charlotte
Perkins Coie 106 119 $805,000 $424,000,000 67 $655,000 116 $565,000 648 Lawyers, 131 Equity Partners, 179 Nonequity Partners, Seattle
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal 106 90 $805,000 $492,000,000 59 $810,000 67 $565,000 608 Lawyers, 132 Equity Partners, 167 Nonequity Partners, National
Arent Fox 110 108 $800,000 $222,500,000 122 $690,000 102 $615,000 322 Lawyers, 98 Equity Partners, 62 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Gardere Wynne Sewell 111 111 $785,000 $169,500,000 146 $660,000 114 $595,000 256 Lawyers, 82 Equity Partners, 65 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Gordon & Rees 111 143 $785,000 $156,500,000 155 $480,000 183 $335,000 326 Lawyers, 25 Equity Partners, 122 Nonequity Partners, San Francisco
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 111 102 $785,000 $579,500,000 47 $670,000 110 $595,000 865 Lawyers, 160 Equity Partners, 130 Nonequity Partners, National
Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto 114 121 $780,000 $111,000,000 189 $805,000 69 $780,000 138 Lawyers, 53 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker 114 119 $780,000 $270,500,000 103 $360,000 199 $495,000 754 Lawyers, 141 Equity Partners, 140 Nonequity Partners, National
McKenna Long & Aldridge 116 98 $775,000 $264,000,000 107 $615,000 128 $520,000 428 Lawyers, 90 Equity Partners, 112 Nonequity Partners, National
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis 117 118 $770,000 $165,000,000 147 $745,000 79 $745,000 221 Lawyers, 111 Equity Partners, 10 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Vedder Price 117 129 $770,000 $181,000,000 141 $695,000 96 $695,000 261 Lawyers, 119 Equity Partners, 27 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Venable 117 126 $770,000 $349,000,000 79 $670,000 110 $570,000 520 Lawyers, 152 Equity Partners, 118 Nonequity Partners, National
Haynes and Boone 120 105 $765,000 $288,000,000 94 $625,000 124 $650,000 461 Lawyers, 139 Equity Partners, 66 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
14 • ZGuide
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Kenyon & Kenyon 101 117 $830,000 $138,000,000 169 $840,000 58 $765,000 164 Lawyers, 46 Equity Partners, 8 Nonequity Partners, New York
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan 101 97 $830,000 $289,000,000 93 $740,000 80 $675,000 390 Lawyers, 109 Equity Partners, 64 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Hunton & Williams 103 98 $825,000 $668,000,000 39 $695,000 96 $705,000 960 Lawyers, 277 Equity Partners, 123 Nonequity Partners, Richmond
Jones Day 104 114 $810,000 $1,540,000,000 4 $655,000 116 $810,000 2,348 Lawyers, 772 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, National
Patton Boggs 104 105 $810,000 $348,500,000 80 $675,000 108 $635,000 518 Lawyers, 119 Equity Partners, 111 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Fenwick & West 106 77 $805,000 $196,000,000 134 $725,000 88 $805,000 271 Lawyers, 92 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Mountain View, CA
Moore & Van Allen 106 87 $805,000 $164,500,000 148 $575,000 139 $550,000 286 Lawyers, 75 Equity Partners, 71 Nonequity Partners, Charlotte
Perkins Coie 106 119 $805,000 $424,000,000 67 $655,000 116 $565,000 648 Lawyers, 131 Equity Partners, 179 Nonequity Partners, Seattle
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal 106 90 $805,000 $492,000,000 59 $810,000 67 $565,000 608 Lawyers, 132 Equity Partners, 167 Nonequity Partners, National
Arent Fox 110 108 $800,000 $222,500,000 122 $690,000 102 $615,000 322 Lawyers, 98 Equity Partners, 62 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Gardere Wynne Sewell 111 111 $785,000 $169,500,000 146 $660,000 114 $595,000 256 Lawyers, 82 Equity Partners, 65 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Gordon & Rees 111 143 $785,000 $156,500,000 155 $480,000 183 $335,000 326 Lawyers, 25 Equity Partners, 122 Nonequity Partners, San Francisco
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 111 102 $785,000 $579,500,000 47 $670,000 110 $595,000 865 Lawyers, 160 Equity Partners, 130 Nonequity Partners, National
Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto 114 121 $780,000 $111,000,000 189 $805,000 69 $780,000 138 Lawyers, 53 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker 114 119 $780,000 $270,500,000 103 $360,000 199 $495,000 754 Lawyers, 141 Equity Partners, 140 Nonequity Partners, National
McKenna Long & Aldridge 116 98 $775,000 $264,000,000 107 $615,000 128 $520,000 428 Lawyers, 90 Equity Partners, 112 Nonequity Partners, National
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis 117 118 $770,000 $165,000,000 147 $745,000 79 $745,000 221 Lawyers, 111 Equity Partners, 10 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Vedder Price 117 129 $770,000 $181,000,000 141 $695,000 96 $695,000 261 Lawyers, 119 Equity Partners, 27 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Venable 117 126 $770,000 $349,000,000 79 $670,000 110 $570,000 520 Lawyers, 152 Equity Partners, 118 Nonequity Partners, National
Haynes and Boone 120 105 $765,000 $288,000,000 94 $625,000 124 $650,000 461 Lawyers, 139 Equity Partners, 66 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
ZGuide • 15 The Am Law 200 The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Partner
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners McGuireWoods 121 121 $755,000 $477,000,000 61 $595,000 134 $520,000 801 Lawyers, 192 Equity Partners, 212 Nonequity Partners, Richmond
Dow Lohnes 122 85 $750,000 $106,000,000 193 $665,000 113 $650,000 160 Lawyers, 48 Equity Partners, 18 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Schiff Hardin 122 128 $750,000 $231,000,000 120 $695,000 96 $590,000 333 Lawyers, 108 Equity Partners, 84 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Sullivan & Worcester 122 113 $750,000 $105,000,000 194 $670,000 110 $590,000 156 Lawyers, 43 Equity Partners, 31 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Seyfarth Shaw 125 133 $740,000 $467,000,000 62 $630,000 122 $565,000 739 Lawyers, 211 Equity Partners, 140 Nonequity Partners, National
Carlton Fields 126 154 $730,000 $145,500,000 162 $550,000 152 $475,000 265 Lawyers, 58 Equity Partners, 95 Nonequity Partners, Tampa
Pepper Hamilton 126 146 $730,000 $331,500,000 82 $690,000 102 $610,000 481 Lawyers, 145 Equity Partners, 65 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Duane Morris 128 108 $725,000 $368,000,000 72 $635,000 121 $500,000 578 Lawyers, 120 Equity Partners, 191 Nonequity Partners, National
Snell & Wilmer 129 129 $720,000 $235,000,000 115 $570,000 141 $525,000 414 Lawyers, 75 Equity Partners, 118 Nonequity Partners, Phoenix
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck 130 — $710,000 $128,500,000 174 $585,000 137 $550,000 220 Lawyers, 66 Equity Partners, 47 Nonequity Partners, Denver
Gibbons 130 135 $710,000 $112,500,000 188 $555,000 150 $455,000 203 Lawyers, 39 Equity Partners, 56 Nonequity Partners, Newark
Kilpatrick Stockton 132 138 $705,000 $276,000,000 100 $620,000 126 $520,000 445 Lawyers, 105 Equity Partners, 110 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Townsend and Townsend and Crew 132 123 $705,000 $164,500,000 148 $755,000 76 $590,000 219 Lawyers, 63 Equity Partners, 27 Nonequity Partners, San Francisco
Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold 134 123 $690,000 $197,500,000 132 $530,000 163 $500,000 373 Lawyers, 63 Equity Partners, 57 Nonequity Partners, San Francisco
Holland & Knight 135 133 $680,000 $606,000,000 44 $590,000 135 $430,000 1,030 Lawyers, 195 Equity Partners, 395 Nonequity Partners, National
Bryan Cave 136 137 $660,000 $502,500,000 58 $585,000 137 $525,000 861 Lawyers, 182 Equity Partners, 155 Nonequity Partners, St. Louis
Dorsey & Whitney 136 138 $660,000 $367,000,000 73 $630,000 122 $585,000 584 Lawyers, 199 Equity Partners, 64 Nonequity Partners, Minneapolis
Jackson Walker 136 145 $660,000 $172,000,000 144 $560,000 147 $470,000 308 Lawyers, 94 Equity Partners, 96 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Bell, Boyd & Lloyd 5 139 135 $650,000 $129,000,000 173 $615,000 128 $430,000 209 Lawyers, 56 Equity Partners, 82 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Nixon Peabody 139 143 $650,000 $457,500,000 63 $700,000 95 $525,000 654 Lawyers, 187 Equity Partners, 138 Nonequity Partners, National
16 • ZGuide 5 Bell, Boyd & Lloyd merged with K&L Gates in March 2009.
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners McGuireWoods 121 121 $755,000 $477,000,000 61 $595,000 134 $520,000 801 Lawyers, 192 Equity Partners, 212 Nonequity Partners, Richmond
Dow Lohnes 122 85 $750,000 $106,000,000 193 $665,000 113 $650,000 160 Lawyers, 48 Equity Partners, 18 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Schiff Hardin 122 128 $750,000 $231,000,000 120 $695,000 96 $590,000 333 Lawyers, 108 Equity Partners, 84 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Sullivan & Worcester 122 113 $750,000 $105,000,000 194 $670,000 110 $590,000 156 Lawyers, 43 Equity Partners, 31 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Seyfarth Shaw 125 133 $740,000 $467,000,000 62 $630,000 122 $565,000 739 Lawyers, 211 Equity Partners, 140 Nonequity Partners, National
Carlton Fields 126 154 $730,000 $145,500,000 162 $550,000 152 $475,000 265 Lawyers, 58 Equity Partners, 95 Nonequity Partners, Tampa
Pepper Hamilton 126 146 $730,000 $331,500,000 82 $690,000 102 $610,000 481 Lawyers, 145 Equity Partners, 65 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Duane Morris 128 108 $725,000 $368,000,000 72 $635,000 121 $500,000 578 Lawyers, 120 Equity Partners, 191 Nonequity Partners, National
Snell & Wilmer 129 129 $720,000 $235,000,000 115 $570,000 141 $525,000 414 Lawyers, 75 Equity Partners, 118 Nonequity Partners, Phoenix
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck 130 — $710,000 $128,500,000 174 $585,000 137 $550,000 220 Lawyers, 66 Equity Partners, 47 Nonequity Partners, Denver
Gibbons 130 135 $710,000 $112,500,000 188 $555,000 150 $455,000 203 Lawyers, 39 Equity Partners, 56 Nonequity Partners, Newark
Kilpatrick Stockton 132 138 $705,000 $276,000,000 100 $620,000 126 $520,000 445 Lawyers, 105 Equity Partners, 110 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Townsend and Townsend and Crew 132 123 $705,000 $164,500,000 148 $755,000 76 $590,000 219 Lawyers, 63 Equity Partners, 27 Nonequity Partners, San Francisco
Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold 134 123 $690,000 $197,500,000 132 $530,000 163 $500,000 373 Lawyers, 63 Equity Partners, 57 Nonequity Partners, San Francisco
Holland & Knight 135 133 $680,000 $606,000,000 44 $590,000 135 $430,000 1,030 Lawyers, 195 Equity Partners, 395 Nonequity Partners, National
Bryan Cave 136 137 $660,000 $502,500,000 58 $585,000 137 $525,000 861 Lawyers, 182 Equity Partners, 155 Nonequity Partners, St. Louis
Dorsey & Whitney 136 138 $660,000 $367,000,000 73 $630,000 122 $585,000 584 Lawyers, 199 Equity Partners, 64 Nonequity Partners, Minneapolis
Jackson Walker 136 145 $660,000 $172,000,000 144 $560,000 147 $470,000 308 Lawyers, 94 Equity Partners, 96 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Bell, Boyd & Lloyd 5 139 135 $650,000 $129,000,000 173 $615,000 128 $430,000 209 Lawyers, 56 Equity Partners, 82 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Nixon Peabody 139 143 $650,000 $457,500,000 63 $700,000 95 $525,000 654 Lawyers, 187 Equity Partners, 138 Nonequity Partners, National
ZGuide • 17 The Am Law 200 The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Partner
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners McCarter & English 141 162 $645,000 $218,000,000 124 $550,000 152 $400,000 395 Lawyers, 96 Equity Partners, 88 Nonequity Partners, Newark
Winstead 142 157 $635,000 $144,500,000 164 $530,000 163 $445,000 272 Lawyers, 86 Equity Partners, 67 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Goulston & Storrs 143 149 $620,000 $126,000,000 175 $730,000 85 $620,000 173 Lawyers, 97 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge 144 129 $610,000 $315,000,000 85 $570,000 141 $400,000 554 Lawyers, 109 Equity Partners, 119 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Epstein Becker & Green 144 138 $610,000 $194,000,000 136 $560,000 147 $425,000 347 Lawyers, 74 Equity Partners, 83 Nonequity Partners, National
Drinker Biddle & Reath 146 151 $605,000 $382,000,000 71 $615,000 128 $520,000 619 Lawyers, 195 Equity Partners, 71 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Day Pitney 147 152 $595,000 $216,000,000 125 $560,000 147 $515,000 385 Lawyers, 138 Equity Partners, 22 Nonequity Partners, Hartford
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn 147 149 $595,000 $145,000,000 163 $685,000 104 $510,000 213 Lawyers, 126 Equity Partners, 40 Nonequity Partners, Detroit
Blank Rome 149 141 $590,000 $312,000,000 87 $610,000 132 $475,000 512 Lawyers, 160 Equity Partners, 110 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Troutman Sanders 149 141 $590,000 $350,500,000 78 $565,000 145 $445,000 620 Lawyers, 174 Equity Partners, 127 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice 151 147 $585,000 $279,000,000 98 $550,000 152 $460,000 505 Lawyers, 157 Equity Partners, 123 Nonequity Partners, Winston-Salem
Barnes & Thornburg 152 157 $580,000 $212,500,000 127 $535,000 161 $510,000 399 Lawyers, 185 Equity Partners, 53 Nonequity Partners, Indianapolis
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney 153 152 $565,000 $273,000,000 102 $565,000 145 $430,000 483 Lawyers, 109 Equity Partners, 95 Nonequity Partners, Pittsburgh
Baker & Hostetler 154 154 $560,000 $319,000,000 84 $545,000 157 $440,000 584 Lawyers, 146 Equity Partners, 159 Nonequity Partners, National
Husch Blackwell Sanders 6 154 — $560,000 $302,000,000 89 $500,000 173 $415,000 604 Lawyers, 191 Equity Partners, 160 Nonequity Partners, Kansas City, MO
Cozen O'Connor 156 161 $545,000 $237,000,000 114 $520,000 166 $400,000 457 Lawyers, 120 Equity Partners, 111 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Faegre & Benson 157 173 $535,000 $312,500,000 86 $615,000 128 $535,000 507 Lawyers, 243 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Minneapolis
Fox Rothschild 157 165 $535,000 $203,000,000 130 $510,000 170 $430,000 397 Lawyers, 109 Equity Partners, 72 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Hinshaw & Culbertson 157 169 $535,000 $192,000,000 137 $415,000 193 $315,000 462 Lawyers, 95 Equity Partners, 194 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Williams Mullen 157 163 $535,000 $150,000,000 159 $505,000 171 $480,000 297 Lawyers, 94 Equity Partners, 25 Nonequity Partners, Richmond
18 • ZGuide 6 Because of the merger of Blackwell Sanders and Husch & Eppenberger in February 2008, there is no year-over-year comparison for the firm.
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners McCarter & English 141 162 $645,000 $218,000,000 124 $550,000 152 $400,000 395 Lawyers, 96 Equity Partners, 88 Nonequity Partners, Newark
Winstead 142 157 $635,000 $144,500,000 164 $530,000 163 $445,000 272 Lawyers, 86 Equity Partners, 67 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Goulston & Storrs 143 149 $620,000 $126,000,000 175 $730,000 85 $620,000 173 Lawyers, 97 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge 144 129 $610,000 $315,000,000 85 $570,000 141 $400,000 554 Lawyers, 109 Equity Partners, 119 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Epstein Becker & Green 144 138 $610,000 $194,000,000 136 $560,000 147 $425,000 347 Lawyers, 74 Equity Partners, 83 Nonequity Partners, National
Drinker Biddle & Reath 146 151 $605,000 $382,000,000 71 $615,000 128 $520,000 619 Lawyers, 195 Equity Partners, 71 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Day Pitney 147 152 $595,000 $216,000,000 125 $560,000 147 $515,000 385 Lawyers, 138 Equity Partners, 22 Nonequity Partners, Hartford
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn 147 149 $595,000 $145,000,000 163 $685,000 104 $510,000 213 Lawyers, 126 Equity Partners, 40 Nonequity Partners, Detroit
Blank Rome 149 141 $590,000 $312,000,000 87 $610,000 132 $475,000 512 Lawyers, 160 Equity Partners, 110 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Troutman Sanders 149 141 $590,000 $350,500,000 78 $565,000 145 $445,000 620 Lawyers, 174 Equity Partners, 127 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice 151 147 $585,000 $279,000,000 98 $550,000 152 $460,000 505 Lawyers, 157 Equity Partners, 123 Nonequity Partners, Winston-Salem
Barnes & Thornburg 152 157 $580,000 $212,500,000 127 $535,000 161 $510,000 399 Lawyers, 185 Equity Partners, 53 Nonequity Partners, Indianapolis
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney 153 152 $565,000 $273,000,000 102 $565,000 145 $430,000 483 Lawyers, 109 Equity Partners, 95 Nonequity Partners, Pittsburgh
Baker & Hostetler 154 154 $560,000 $319,000,000 84 $545,000 157 $440,000 584 Lawyers, 146 Equity Partners, 159 Nonequity Partners, National
Husch Blackwell Sanders 6 154 — $560,000 $302,000,000 89 $500,000 173 $415,000 604 Lawyers, 191 Equity Partners, 160 Nonequity Partners, Kansas City, MO
Cozen O'Connor 156 161 $545,000 $237,000,000 114 $520,000 166 $400,000 457 Lawyers, 120 Equity Partners, 111 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Faegre & Benson 157 173 $535,000 $312,500,000 86 $615,000 128 $535,000 507 Lawyers, 243 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Minneapolis
Fox Rothschild 157 165 $535,000 $203,000,000 130 $510,000 170 $430,000 397 Lawyers, 109 Equity Partners, 72 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Hinshaw & Culbertson 157 169 $535,000 $192,000,000 137 $415,000 193 $315,000 462 Lawyers, 95 Equity Partners, 194 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Williams Mullen 157 163 $535,000 $150,000,000 159 $505,000 171 $480,000 297 Lawyers, 94 Equity Partners, 25 Nonequity Partners, Richmond
ZGuide • 19 The Am Law 200 The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Partner 7 Bradley Arant Rose & White merged with Boult, Cummings, Conners & Berry in January 2009 to form Bradley Arant Boult Cummings. The 2008 ranking is for Bradley Arant.
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith 161 166 $530,000 $212,500,000 127 $325,000 200 $310,000 651 Lawyers, 68 Equity Partners, 256 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Ice Miller 162 177 $525,000 $126,000,000 175 $485,000 179 $505,000 258 Lawyers, 110 Equity Partners, 7 Nonequity Partners, Indianapolis
Jackson Lewis 163 169 $515,000 $233,000,000 118 $490,000 176 $450,000 474 Lawyers, 167 Equity Partners, 59 Nonequity Partners, National
Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear 164 177 $510,000 $138,000,000 169 $695,000 96 $500,000 199 Lawyers, 100 Equity Partners, 6 Nonequity Partners, Irvine, CA
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps 165 148 $505,000 $106,500,000 192 $570,000 141 $420,000 186 Lawyers, 59 Equity Partners, 33 Nonequity Partners, San Diego
Michael Best & Friedrich 165 167 $505,000 $119,500,000 182 $555,000 150 $380,000 216 Lawyers, 89 Equity Partners, 61 Nonequity Partners, Milwaukee
Thompson Hine 167 167 $500,000 $196,500,000 133 $500,000 173 $420,000 394 Lawyers, 117 Equity Partners, 71 Nonequity Partners, Cleveland
Akerman Senterfitt 168 180 $470,000 $254,000,000 110 $540,000 159 $465,000 468 Lawyers, 198 Equity Partners, 37 Nonequity Partners, Miami
Robinson & Cole 168 — $470,000 $109,000,000 191 $520,000 166 $435,000 210 Lawyers, 74 Equity Partners, 16 Nonequity Partners, Hartford
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings 7 170 163 $465,000 $123,500,000 178 $495,000 175 $450,000 249 Lawyers, 138 Equity Partners, 20 Nonequity Partners, Birmingham
Stinson Morrison Hecker 8 170 189 $465,000 $157,000,000 154 $515,000 168 $385,000 306 Lawyers, 134 Equity Partners, 60 Nonequity Partners, Kansas City, MO
Thompson Coburn 170 182 $465,000 $161,000,000 151 $490,000 176 $410,000 330 Lawyers, 139 Equity Partners, 42 Nonequity Partners, St. Louis
Polsinelli Shughart 9 173 173 $455,000 $113,500,000 187 $385,000 198 $330,000 296 Lawyers, 58 Equity Partners, 84 Nonequity Partners, Kansas City, MO
Dykema Gossett 174 183 $450,000 $170,000,000 145 $490,000 176 $345,000 345 Lawyers, 106 Equity Partners, 103 Nonequity Partners, Detroit
Lewis and Roca 174 — $450,000 $105,000,000 194 $505,000 171 $435,000 207 Lawyers, 101 Equity Partners, 7 Nonequity Partners, Phoenix
Dickinson Wright 176 — $445,000 $100,500,000 198 $470,000 184 $365,000 214 Lawyers, 88 Equity Partners, 43 Nonequity Partners, Detroit
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough 176 183 $445,000 $189,000,000 139 $485,000 179 $385,000 391 Lawyers, 147 Equity Partners, 70 Nonequity Partners, Columbia, SC
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur 178 179 $440,000 $121,500,000 179 $485,000 179 $345,000 251 Lawyers, 91 Equity Partners, 44 Nonequity Partners, Columbus
Davis Wright Tremaine 179 197 $435,000 $255,000,000 109 $535,000 161 $410,000 475 Lawyers, 206 Equity Partners, 75 Nonequity Partners, Seattle
Littler Mendelson 179 191 $435,000 $354,000,000 76 $485,000 179 $380,000 731 Lawyers, 280 Equity Partners, 87 Nonequity Partners, National
20 • ZGuide 8 Stinson Morrison Hecker’s figures are based on calendar year 2008 because its fiscal year ended April 30, 2009, which was past the reporting deadline. 9 Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus merged with Shughart Thomson & Kilroy in February 2009 to form Polsinelli Shughart. The 2008 ranking is for Polsinelli Shalton.
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith 161 166 $530,000 $212,500,000 127 $325,000 200 $310,000 651 Lawyers, 68 Equity Partners, 256 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Ice Miller 162 177 $525,000 $126,000,000 175 $485,000 179 $505,000 258 Lawyers, 110 Equity Partners, 7 Nonequity Partners, Indianapolis
Jackson Lewis 163 169 $515,000 $233,000,000 118 $490,000 176 $450,000 474 Lawyers, 167 Equity Partners, 59 Nonequity Partners, National
Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear 164 177 $510,000 $138,000,000 169 $695,000 96 $500,000 199 Lawyers, 100 Equity Partners, 6 Nonequity Partners, Irvine, CA
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps 165 148 $505,000 $106,500,000 192 $570,000 141 $420,000 186 Lawyers, 59 Equity Partners, 33 Nonequity Partners, San Diego
Michael Best & Friedrich 165 167 $505,000 $119,500,000 182 $555,000 150 $380,000 216 Lawyers, 89 Equity Partners, 61 Nonequity Partners, Milwaukee
Thompson Hine 167 167 $500,000 $196,500,000 133 $500,000 173 $420,000 394 Lawyers, 117 Equity Partners, 71 Nonequity Partners, Cleveland
Akerman Senterfitt 168 180 $470,000 $254,000,000 110 $540,000 159 $465,000 468 Lawyers, 198 Equity Partners, 37 Nonequity Partners, Miami
Robinson & Cole 168 — $470,000 $109,000,000 191 $520,000 166 $435,000 210 Lawyers, 74 Equity Partners, 16 Nonequity Partners, Hartford
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings 7 170 163 $465,000 $123,500,000 178 $495,000 175 $450,000 249 Lawyers, 138 Equity Partners, 20 Nonequity Partners, Birmingham
Stinson Morrison Hecker 8 170 189 $465,000 $157,000,000 154 $515,000 168 $385,000 306 Lawyers, 134 Equity Partners, 60 Nonequity Partners, Kansas City, MO
Thompson Coburn 170 182 $465,000 $161,000,000 151 $490,000 176 $410,000 330 Lawyers, 139 Equity Partners, 42 Nonequity Partners, St. Louis
Polsinelli Shughart 9 173 173 $455,000 $113,500,000 187 $385,000 198 $330,000 296 Lawyers, 58 Equity Partners, 84 Nonequity Partners, Kansas City, MO
Dykema Gossett 174 183 $450,000 $170,000,000 145 $490,000 176 $345,000 345 Lawyers, 106 Equity Partners, 103 Nonequity Partners, Detroit
Lewis and Roca 174 — $450,000 $105,000,000 194 $505,000 171 $435,000 207 Lawyers, 101 Equity Partners, 7 Nonequity Partners, Phoenix
Dickinson Wright 176 — $445,000 $100,500,000 198 $470,000 184 $365,000 214 Lawyers, 88 Equity Partners, 43 Nonequity Partners, Detroit
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough 176 183 $445,000 $189,000,000 139 $485,000 179 $385,000 391 Lawyers, 147 Equity Partners, 70 Nonequity Partners, Columbia, SC
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur 178 179 $440,000 $121,500,000 179 $485,000 179 $345,000 251 Lawyers, 91 Equity Partners, 44 Nonequity Partners, Columbus
Davis Wright Tremaine 179 197 $435,000 $255,000,000 109 $535,000 161 $410,000 475 Lawyers, 206 Equity Partners, 75 Nonequity Partners, Seattle
Littler Mendelson 179 191 $435,000 $354,000,000 76 $485,000 179 $380,000 731 Lawyers, 280 Equity Partners, 87 Nonequity Partners, National
ZGuide • 21 The Am Law 200 The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Partner
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Stoel Rives 179 187 339 Lawyers, 141 Equity Partners, 59 Nonequity Partners, Portland, OR $435,000 $183,500,000 140 $540,000 159 $385,000
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz 182 188 513 Lawyers, 169 Equity Partners, 86 Nonequity Partners, Memphis $430,000 $235,000,000 115 $460,000 188 $360,000
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart 182 183 411 Lawyers, 131 Equity Partners, 89 Nonequity Partners, Greenville, SC $430,000 $192,000,000 137 $465,000 187 $360,000
Powell Goldstein 10 182 157 205 Lawyers, 54 Equity Partners, 47 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta $430,000 $118,000,000 183 $575,000 139 $345,000
Baker & Daniels 185 191 283 Lawyers, 110 Equity Partners, 40 Nonequity Partners, Indianapolis $420,000 $132,500,000 172 $470,000 184 $375,000
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease 185 186 350 Lawyers, 168 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Columbus $420,000 $155,000,000 156 $445,000 190 $420,000
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll 187 160 515 Lawyers, 175 Equity Partners, 52 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia $415,000 $283,000,000 96 $550,000 152 $410,000
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone 188 191 352 Lawyers, 119 Equity Partners, 46 Nonequity Partners, Detroit $410,000 $146,000,000 161 $415,000 193 $360,000
WolfBlock 11 188 171 290 Lawyers, 56 Equity Partners, 97 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia $410,000 $159,500,000 153 $550,000 152 $320,000
Frost Brown Todd 190 189 331 Lawyers, 135 Equity Partners, 37 Nonequity Partners, Cincinnati $405,000 $142,000,000 167 $430,000 192 $360,000
GrayRobinson 190 — 215 Lawyers, 108 Equity Partners, 13 Nonequity Partners, Orlando $405,000 $99,000,000 199 $460,000 188 $395,000
Kutak Rock 190 173 391 Lawyers, 168 Equity Partners, 59 Nonequity Partners, Omaha $405,000 $162,000,000 150 $415,000 193 $355,000
Quarles & Brady 193 199 414 Lawyers, 182 Equity Partners, 50 Nonequity Partners, Milwaukee $395,000 $213,500,000 126 $515,000 168 $370,000
Adams and Reese 194 198 233 Lawyers, 89 Equity Partners, 56 Nonequity Partners, New Orleans $390,000 $103,000,000 197 $440,000 191 $320,000
Dinsmore & Shohl 195 180 332 Lawyers, 114 Equity Partners, 67 Nonequity Partners, Cincinnati $385,000 $133,000,000 171 $400,000 197 $320,000
Holland & Hart 195 195 385 Lawyers, 182 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Denver $385,000 $180,500,000 142 $470,000 184 $385,000
Lathrop & Gage 197 200 276 Lawyers, 90 Equity Partners, 51 Nonequity Partners, Kansas City, MO $380,000 $115,000,000 186 $415,000 193 $330,000
Saul Ewing 197 191 228 Lawyers, 79 Equity Partners, 52 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia $380,000 $120,000,000 181 $525,000 165 $355,000
Holme Roberts & Owen 199 195 211 Lawyers, 99 Equity Partners, 15 Nonequity Partners, Denver $375,000 $115,500,000 185 $545,000 157 $400,000
Thacher Proffitt & Wood 12 200 76 195 Lawyers, 58 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York $200,000 $121,500,000 179 $625,000 124 $200,000
22 • ZGuide 10 Powell Goldstein merged with Bryan Cave in January 2009. 11 WolfBlock dissolved in March 2009. 12 Thacher Proffitt & Wood dissolved in January 2009.
Compensation Firm Profits Per Revenue Per Average, Lawyers, Partners, Location PPP Rank 2009 Rank PPP 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 200 Law Am Lawyer Rank RPL All Partners Stoel Rives 179 187 339 Lawyers, 141 Equity Partners, 59 Nonequity Partners, Portland, OR $435,000 $183,500,000 140 $540,000 159 $385,000
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz 182 188 513 Lawyers, 169 Equity Partners, 86 Nonequity Partners, Memphis $430,000 $235,000,000 115 $460,000 188 $360,000
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart 182 183 411 Lawyers, 131 Equity Partners, 89 Nonequity Partners, Greenville, SC $430,000 $192,000,000 137 $465,000 187 $360,000
Powell Goldstein 10 182 157 205 Lawyers, 54 Equity Partners, 47 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta $430,000 $118,000,000 183 $575,000 139 $345,000
Baker & Daniels 185 191 283 Lawyers, 110 Equity Partners, 40 Nonequity Partners, Indianapolis $420,000 $132,500,000 172 $470,000 184 $375,000
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease 185 186 350 Lawyers, 168 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Columbus $420,000 $155,000,000 156 $445,000 190 $420,000
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll 187 160 515 Lawyers, 175 Equity Partners, 52 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia $415,000 $283,000,000 96 $550,000 152 $410,000
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone 188 191 352 Lawyers, 119 Equity Partners, 46 Nonequity Partners, Detroit $410,000 $146,000,000 161 $415,000 193 $360,000
WolfBlock 11 188 171 290 Lawyers, 56 Equity Partners, 97 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia $410,000 $159,500,000 153 $550,000 152 $320,000
Frost Brown Todd 190 189 331 Lawyers, 135 Equity Partners, 37 Nonequity Partners, Cincinnati $405,000 $142,000,000 167 $430,000 192 $360,000
GrayRobinson 190 — 215 Lawyers, 108 Equity Partners, 13 Nonequity Partners, Orlando $405,000 $99,000,000 199 $460,000 188 $395,000
Kutak Rock 190 173 391 Lawyers, 168 Equity Partners, 59 Nonequity Partners, Omaha $405,000 $162,000,000 150 $415,000 193 $355,000
Quarles & Brady 193 199 414 Lawyers, 182 Equity Partners, 50 Nonequity Partners, Milwaukee $395,000 $213,500,000 126 $515,000 168 $370,000
Adams and Reese 194 198 233 Lawyers, 89 Equity Partners, 56 Nonequity Partners, New Orleans $390,000 $103,000,000 197 $440,000 191 $320,000
Dinsmore & Shohl 195 180 332 Lawyers, 114 Equity Partners, 67 Nonequity Partners, Cincinnati $385,000 $133,000,000 171 $400,000 197 $320,000
Holland & Hart 195 195 385 Lawyers, 182 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Denver $385,000 $180,500,000 142 $470,000 184 $385,000
Lathrop & Gage 197 200 276 Lawyers, 90 Equity Partners, 51 Nonequity Partners, Kansas City, MO $380,000 $115,000,000 186 $415,000 193 $330,000
Saul Ewing 197 191 228 Lawyers, 79 Equity Partners, 52 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia $380,000 $120,000,000 181 $525,000 165 $355,000
Holme Roberts & Owen 199 195 211 Lawyers, 99 Equity Partners, 15 Nonequity Partners, Denver $375,000 $115,500,000 185 $545,000 157 $400,000
Thacher Proffitt & Wood 12 200 76 195 Lawyers, 58 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York $200,000 $121,500,000 179 $625,000 124 $200,000
ZGuide • 23 Value Per Lawyer The Am Law 200, Ranked By Value Per Lawyer
VPL: Partner Comp/ Lawyers Needed Number of Lawyers, to Generate Firm 2009 VPL VPL 2009 Rank FY 2008 $10 Million
1 Wachtell $1,505,000 6.64
2 Sullivan & Cromwell I $750,000 13.33
3 Irell & Manella I $730,000 13.70
4 Quinn Emanuel $700,000 14.29
5 Munger, Tolles I $660,000 15.15
6 Gibson, Dunn I $570,000 17.54
7 Boies, Schiller $545,000 18.35
7 Kirkland & Ellis I $545,000 18.35
9 Cahill Gordon $535,000 18.69
9 Simpson Thacher $535,000 18.69
11 McDermott Will $525,000 19.05
12 Cravath $515,000 19.42
13 Milbank, Tweed I $510,000 19.61
14 Debevoise & Plimpton I $505,000 19.80
15 Davis Polk I $490,000 20.41
16 Williams & Connolly $485,000 20.62
17 Willkie Farr $480,000 20.83
18 Paul, Weiss I $470,000 21.28
19 Choate, Hall $465,000 21.51
19 Weil, Gotshal I $465,000 21.51
24 • ZGuide Firms noted with a star (I) are on The American Lawyer’s “A-List.” (See the methodology on pages 2 and 3.) Firms ranked 101 to 200 in The Am Law 200 are in bold. See footnotes on the chart ranking firms by Profits Per Equity Partner for information about changes in firms’ status in 2008/2009.
VPL: Partner Comp/ Lawyers Needed Number of Lawyers, to Generate Firm 2009 VPL VPL 2009 Rank FY 2008 $10 Million
21 Cleary Gottlieb I $460,000 21.74
21 Stevens & Lee $460,000 21.74
23 Skadden $455,000 21.98
24 Dechert $435,000 22.99
24 Schulte Roth $435,000 22.99
26 Jeffer, Mangels $430,000 23.26
27 Ropes & Gray $425,000 23.53
28 Covington & Burling I $420,000 23.81
28 Kasowitz, Benson $420,000 23.81
28 Vinson & Elkins $420,000 23.81
31 Loeb & Loeb $415,000 24.10
32 Goodwin Procter $410,000 24.39
32 Latham & Watkins I $410,000 24.39
32 Paul, Hastings $410,000 24.39
35 Allen Matkins $405,000 24.69
35 Baker Botts $405,000 24.69
35 Robins, Kaplan $405,000 24.69
38 Honigman Miller $400,000 25.00
38 Winston & Strawn $400,000 25.00
40 Kaye Scholer $395,000 25.32
ZGuide • 25 Value Per Lawyer The Am Law 200, Ranked By Value Per Lawyer
VPL: Partner Comp/ Lawyers Needed Number of Lawyers, to Generate Firm 2009 VPL VPL 2009 Rank FY 2008 $10 Million
41 Hogan & Hartson $390,000 25.64
41 Patterson Belknap $390,000 25.64
41 Sidley Austin $390,000 25.64
41 Vedder Price $390,000 25.64
41 Wiley Rein $390,000 25.64
46 Akin Gump $385,000 25.97
47 Finnegan, Henderson $380,000 26.32
47 Howrey I $380,000 26.32
47 Kramer Levin $380,000 26.32
47 McKee Nelson $380,000 26.32
47 O'Melveny & Myers I $380,000 26.32
47 Wilmer I $380,000 26.32
53 Cooley Godward $375,000 26.67
54 Katten Muchin $370,000 27.03
55 Chapman and Cutler $365,000 27.40
55 Hughes Hubbard I $365,000 27.40
55 Shearman & Sterling $365,000 27.40
58 DLA Piper US $355,000 28.17
58 Locke Lord $355,000 28.17
58 Morgan, Lewis $355,000 28.17
61 Jenner & Block $350,000 28.57
26 • ZGuide
VPL: Partner Comp/ Lawyers Needed Number of Lawyers, to Generate Firm 2009 VPL VPL 2009 Rank FY 2008 $10 Million
62 Bingham McCutchen $345,000 28.99
62 Goulston & Storrs $345,000 28.99
62 Greenberg Traurig $345,000 28.99
62 Herrick, Feinstein $345,000 28.99
62 Proskauer Rose $345,000 28.99
62 Stroock & Stroock $345,000 28.99
68 Gardere Wynne $340,000 29.41
68 Schiff Hardin $340,000 29.41
70 Andrews Kurth $335,000 29.85
70 Fried, Frank $335,000 29.85
70 Orrick I $335,000 29.85
70 Pillsbury Winthrop $335,000 29.85
74 Fulbright & Jaworski $330,000 30.30
75 Bracewell & Giuliani $325,000 30.77
75 Fish & Richardson $325,000 30.77
75 Foley & Lardner $325,000 30.77
75 Morris, Manning $325,000 30.77
75 Sheppard, Mullin $325,000 30.77
75 Steptoe & Johnson $325,000 30.77
81 Arnold & Porter I $315,000 31.75
81 Cadwalader $315,000 31.75
ZGuide • 27 Value Per Lawyer The Am Law 200, Ranked By Value Per Lawyer
VPL: Partner Comp/ Lawyers Needed Number of Lawyers, to Generate Firm 2009 VPL VPL 2009 Rank FY 2008 $10 Million
81 Dewey & LeBoeuf $315,000 31.75
81 Dickstein Shapiro $315,000 31.75
81 Wilson Sonsini $315,000 31.75
86 Morrison & Foerster I $310,000 32.26
87 Arent Fox $305,000 32.79
87 Barnes & Thornburg $305,000 32.79
87 King & Spalding $305,000 32.79
90 Fitzpatrick, Cella $300,000 33.33
90 Lowenstein Sandler $300,000 33.33
90 Sutherland Asbill $300,000 33.33
93 Hunton & Williams $295,000 33.90
93 Venable $295,000 33.90
95 Haynes and Boone $290,000 34.48
95 Jackson Walker $290,000 34.48
97 Bell, Boyd $285,000 35.09
97 Bradley Arant $285,000 35.09
97 Brown Rudnick $285,000 35.09
97 Brownstein Hyatt $285,000 35.09
97 Crowell & Moring $285,000 35.09
97 Patton Boggs $285,000 35.09
28 • ZGuide
VPL: Partner Comp/ Lawyers Needed Number of Lawyers, to Generate Firm 2009 VPL VPL 2009 Rank FY 2008 $10 Million
97 Reed Smith $285,000 35.09
104 Foley Hoag $280,000 35.71
104 Kelley Drye $280,000 35.71
104 Manatt, Phelps $280,000 35.71
104 Mintz, Levin $280,000 35.71
104 Moore & Van Allen $280,000 35.71
104 Sullivan & Worcester $280,000 35.71
104 Thompson & Knight $280,000 35.71
111 Carlton Fields $275,000 36.36
111 Fenwick & West $275,000 36.36
111 Sonnenschein $275,000 36.36
114 Alston & Bird $270,000 37.04
114 Dow Lohnes $270,000 37.04
114 Duane Morris $270,000 37.04
114 K&L Gates $270,000 37.04
114 Perkins Coie $270,000 37.04
114 Seyfarth Shaw $270,000 37.04
114 Shook, Hardy $270,000 37.04
114 Sills Cummis $270,000 37.04
114 White & Case $270,000 37.04
ZGuide • 29 Value Per Lawyer The Am Law 200, Ranked By Value Per Lawyer
VPL: Partner Comp/ Lawyers Needed Number of Lawyers, to Generate Firm 2009 VPL VPL 2009 Rank FY 2008 $10 Million
123 Dorsey & Whitney $265,000 37.74
123 Jones Day $265,000 37.74
123 Knobbe, Martens $265,000 37.74
123 Mayer Brown $265,000 37.74
123 Michael Best $265,000 37.74
123 Pepper Hamilton $265,000 37.74
129 Chadbourne & Parke $260,000 38.46
129 McGuireWoods $260,000 38.46
129 Nixon Peabody $260,000 38.46
132 Faegre & Benson $255,000 39.22
132 Womble Carlyle $255,000 39.22
134 Blank Rome $250,000 40.00
134 Holland & Knight $250,000 40.00
134 Kenyon & Kenyon $250,000 40.00
134 Kilpatrick Stockton $250,000 40.00
134 Winstead $250,000 40.00
139 Davis Wright $245,000 40.82
139 McKenna Long $245,000 40.82
139 Snell & Wilmer $245,000 40.82
139 Stinson Morrison $245,000 40.82
30 • ZGuide
VPL: Partner Comp/ Lawyers Needed Number of Lawyers, to Generate Firm 2009 VPL VPL 2009 Rank FY 2008 $10 Million
143 Husch Blackwell $240,000 41.67
143 Townsend and Townsend $240,000 41.67
145 Akerman Senterfitt $235,000 42.55
145 Baker & McKenzie $235,000 42.55
147 Baker & Hostetler $230,000 43.48
147 Ice Miller $230,000 43.48
147 Lewis and Roca $230,000 43.48
150 Dickinson Wright $225,000 44.44
150 Drinker Biddle $225,000 44.44
150 Stoel Rives $225,000 44.44
150 Thompson Coburn $225,000 44.44
154 GrayRobinson $220,000 45.45
155 Day Pitney $215,000 46.51
155 Gibbons $215,000 46.51
155 Holme Roberts $215,000 46.51
155 Jackson Lewis $215,000 46.51
155 Nelson Mullins $215,000 46.51
155 Troutman Sanders $215,000 46.51
161 Dykema Gossett $210,000 47.62
161 Quarles & Brady $210,000 47.62
ZGuide • 31 Value Per Lawyer The Am Law 200, Ranked By Value Per Lawyer
VPL: Partner Comp/ Lawyers Needed Number of Lawyers, to Generate Firm 2009 VPL VPL 2009 Rank FY 2008 $10 Million
163 Bryan Cave $205,000 48.78
163 Kutak Rock $205,000 48.78
163 Luce, Forward $205,000 48.78
166 Adams and Reese $200,000 50.00
166 Baker & Daniels $200,000 50.00
166 Cozen O'Connor $200,000 50.00
166 Saul Ewing $200,000 50.00
166 Squire, Sanders $200,000 50.00
166 Thompson Hine $200,000 50.00
166 Vorys, Sater $200,000 50.00
173 Fox Rothschild $195,000 51.28
173 Hinshaw & Culbertson $195,000 51.28
175 Epstein Becker $190,000 52.63
175 Littler Mendelson $190,000 52.63
175 Ogletree, Deakins $190,000 52.63
175 Williams Mullen $190,000 52.63
179 Curtis, Mallet-Prevost $185,000 54.05
179 Frost Brown $185,000 54.05
179 McCarter & English $185,000 54.05
32 • ZGuide
VPL: Partner Comp/ Lawyers Needed Number of Lawyers, to Generate Firm 2009 VPL VPL 2009 Rank FY 2008 $10 Million
179 Porter Wright $185,000 54.05
179 Robinson & Cole $185,000 54.05
179 Wilson Elser $185,000 54.05
185 Baker, Donelson $180,000 55.56
185 Ballard Spahr $180,000 55.56
185 Buchanan Ingersoll $180,000 55.56
185 Holland & Hart $180,000 55.56
189 Dinsmore & Shohl $175,000 57.14
189 Fragomen, Del Rey $175,000 57.14
191 Miller, Canfield $170,000 58.82
191 Powell Goldstein $170,000 58.82
191 WolfBlock $170,000 58.82
194 Edwards Angell $165,000 60.61
194 Lathrop & Gage $165,000 60.61
196 Polsinelli Shughart $160,000 62.50
196 Sedgwick, Detert $160,000 62.50
198 Lewis Brisbois $155,000 64.52
199 Gordon & Rees $150,000 66.67
200 Thacher Proffitt $60,000 166.67
ZGuide • 33 The Global2009 Am 100 Law 100 Forward Looking Strategies: Tough Medicine and Elixirs for Success © Zeughauser Group, LLC 2009
The 2009 Am Law 100 rankings released by The American Lawyer showed that the average profits per equity partner of the 100 top-grossing law firms in the United States declined 4.3% in 2008. It is clear that 2008 brought to an end, at least temporarily, what The American Lawyer called the “Law Firm Golden Age,” the five-year period from 2003 through 2007 that saw historic percentage increases in both revenue per lawyer (RPL) and profits per equity partner (PPEP).
While we expect that 2009 will be another grim year for most of the Am Law 100 firms, and that further cost-cutting seems inevitable, in contrast with many industry pundits we believe that when the economy rebounds, the firms that have adapted to the changing landscape by implementing forward-looking strategies will lead the market to new highs in both RPL and PPEP.
We are pleased to offer you our analysis of what the legal profession’s 2008 results portend for 2009, including our view of best practices leading firms should implement to emerge stronger and more competitive when the economy rebounds.
2008 Marked a Reversal in Profitability Growth Trends
The 2008 Am Law 100 financial results confirmed that many of the firms with a significant New York-based capital markets practice (which had enjoyed the strongest growth in RPL and PPEP during the five years ending with 2007) had a weak year, while firms with a litigation focus, as well as many regional firms that offer services at lower fees and are less dependent on the flow of capital markets transactions, fared better.
34 • ZGuide The 25 firms with the highest PPEP in 2008 (many of them New York-based) suffered, on average, an 8% decrease in PPEP from 2007. But the 25 firms that ranked in the fourth quartile by PPEP in 2008 (firms that generally operate in lower-priced “markets”—broadly defined to include geographic markets, practice areas, and industry sectors) had a lower average drop in PPEP of approximately 2% from the year before.1 This disrupted a long-term trend of faster growth in profitability at the most profitable firms, a trend that caused a widening “profitability gap” to emerge, distinguishing the most profitable firms from all others.
When the economy rebounds, we expect that those firms that traditionally have enjoyed the strongest profitability once again will be able to grow PPEP at faster rates than the rest of the market, but only if they embrace strategies for aligning the high value they deliver with client needs for reduced legal expenses—strategies such as win-win alternative pricing arrangements, flexible staffing models, and merit- and competency-based compensation systems at the associate and partner levels.
But we also believe that firms that are enjoying a comparative advantage during the downturn can convert their temporary gains into lasting advantage if they invest their profits wisely in strong, long-term growth strategies, including building breadth and depth in their most profitable markets, investing in key client-care programs, and ensuring that their best performing talent is appropriately compensated.
Average Profitability Is Likely to Be Significantly Lower in 2009
We are well into the second quarter of 2009, and it is apparent that many of the industry’s leading firms will continue to perform below par at least through the rest of the year, as the economy continues to struggle and the demand for high-end legal services lags.
We expect that the average profits per equity partner for the Am Law 100 will be significantly lower in 2009 than in 2008, partly because the credit freeze that followed Lehman Brothers’ September 15th collapse decimated capital markets
1 We calculated these percentages using Am Law 100 data published by The American Lawyer in 2007 and 2008.
ZGuide • 35 The 2009 Am Law 100
practices, dramatically affected 2008 fourth-quarter and 2009 first-quarter productivity and inventory, and increased the length of the collection cycle. The near cessation of capital markets activity caught off-guard many firms that had been hiring talent as if the preceding ten-year boom in the legal industry would continue unabated, leaving them overstaffed for the reduced demand for services. All of these factors will reverberate through 2009.
We have been told by several industry leaders that demand in the first quarter of 2009 has stabilized at or slightly above 2008 fourth-quarter levels. However, with little likelihood of a significant turnaround in the economy in 2009, four full quarters at current levels of demand will still produce lower revenue and PPEP than in 2008, barring further dramatic expense reductions.
Strategies for Market Leaders
The severity of the economic downturn will accelerate longstanding industry trends, including globalization of practices, slow growth of equity partnerships, pressure on PPEP, restructuring of associate compensation, second- guessing of many aspects of two-tier compensation structures, convergence, unbundling, market segmentation, increased ratios in compensation systems, outsourcing, and focus on client and matter management. These factors will cause fundamental changes to the basic law firm model and to client relationships to occur more quickly than the management of many firms expected.
We recognize that law firm strategy is not a “one-size-fits- all” proposition. But we offer six strategies for all market- leading firms to consider if they aim to emerge from the downturn with increased market share and stronger financial performance.
Cutting Costs
The cost-cutting measures we saw many law firms implement in 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 have been significant, but continued and deeper cost cuts are needed if firms hope to maintain levels of profitability at or near those of 2008. Firms appear to be resisting deeper cuts in
36 • ZGuide payroll, headcount, and other expenses partly because of internal and industry-wide cultural pressures against cuts, and partly out of fear that they will be understaffed and blacklisted in the market when the economy rebounds. But the consequences of not cutting deeply at this juncture are severe, and we believe firms stand to gain in the long run by cutting costs significantly, while simultaneously positioning themselves to respond to the changing market.
We encourage firms to take a sharp knife to payroll and other expenses. As painful as the exercise may be, we think firms should continue to lay off unproductive associates and counsel out chronically under-productive equity and non-equity partners. In addition, we recommend a salary rollback for all non-partner attorneys. Rolling back salaries not only will enhance profitability, but will boost a firm’s credibility with clients at a time when maintaining and strengthening client relationships is crucial.
We also advise most firms to scale back attorney hiring in 2009 materially. If the economy rebounds in 2010, there will be no shortage of recent graduates in the market, as well as a bountiful supply of outsourced talent to fill staging gaps.
Firms also need to act boldly to get out of marginally profitable and unprofitable practice areas, and to close underperforming offices that do not fit into the firm’s long- term strategic vision. So far, only a handful of firms have taken these steps.
Finally, too many firms have used non-equity partnerships as a panacea for too many woes, ranging from propping up PPEP to avoiding making hard decisions about partnership admission. Much scorn has been heaped on high associate salaries as the root of all evil when it comes to rising legal costs for firms and clients alike. Not enough attention has been paid to non-equity partner income creep and declining productivity. Non-equity partnership tiers can add value when they are used to allow lawyers temporarily to opt- out of the partner track to raise a family or care for a loved one, or for highly specialized service partners who are not expected to generate their own business; but when not tightly administered, their swelling ranks over time block opportunities for associates to get the best work, become a
ZGuide • 37 The 2009 Am Law 100
crutch that allows equity partners to shrug off their training and mentoring responsibilities to young associates, become an expensive form of leverage, and are less flexible than outsourcing. The recession has accentuated all of these faults in what was a grand experiment that has evolved at the vast majority of firms into a failed model. We recommend that non-equity partner ranks be trimmed back severely in favor of providing better opportunities for professional growth to young associates.
There are many aspects of the modern law firm model that have evolved in an unhealthy way; most pundits are calling it dead. But, there are some aspects that we believe are important, and the promise to deserving associates of a rewarding career at one’s firm is paramount among them. In the rush to proclaim the model dead, we caution against throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Strategic Positioning and Branding
A recession is an important time for firms to assess their vision, brand, and position and to choose strategically the practice areas—existing and new—for which they want to be known. Ownership of a particular niche is especially important in an economic downturn; there is less work to be had, and the competition for it is tougher. In a flight to quality, clients are more likely to turn to well-known brands—market leaders—for their most important work.
We advise firms to invest during the recession in developing their brands; a recession provides opportunities to build a brand even more quickly, because as many firms retrench from brand-building activities as a cost-saving measure, those firms that do focus on developing their brands will gain a greater share of the attention of the client audience.
Strategic Growth in a Restructuring Financial Services Industry
The restructuring of the financial services industry, which has had such a damaging effect on many firms’ practices during the recession, ultimately will restore demand for some traditional high-end legal services, and will create demand for new ones. We encourage firms that want to capture that work to work diligently to maintain relationships with
38 • ZGuide prominent investment bankers who are migrating to new and different financial institutions, and to develop expertise in the new areas of practice that will support the bankers at their new platforms.
Strategic Growth in Emerging Economies
Law firms with a presence in the BRIC markets (Brazil, Russia, India and China) would be wise to add new emphasis to their practices in those markets, particularly in China, which likely will roar out of the recession, possibly leading the global economy and positioning the Yuan as the leading reserve currency over the next quarter century.
China alone accounted for one-third of all financial assets in emerging markets in 2006, according to a February 2008 report by McKinsey & Company, which also said that Chinese companies raised more money through IPOs in 2006 than British, German, or Japanese ones did, and as much as all companies in the eurozone combined.
Structuring Win-Win Alternative Fee Arrangements to Address Pressure on Law Firm Fees
In an environment in which clients are facing severe financial issues of their own, we expect firms to face increasing pressure for reductions in hourly billing rates and for fee arrangements that are not based on hourly billing rates at all. Except in limited circumstances, the hourly rate system is, after all, the worst of all worlds from a client’s point of view. Under it, the client’s legal costs are unpredictable; there is no direct financial incentive for the firm to reach a beneficial result in an efficient manner; and the risk of cost overruns is borne entirely by the client.
While client discomfort with hourly billing may be assuaged partly through a reduction in rates, we think firms should work aggressively to create win-win billing arrangements that more closely align the client’s and the law firm’s economic interests for the type of work being performed. For example, a flat fee arrangement may be appropriate for both the client and the firm for certain routine, standardized work; the client can be comfortable that it is paying a fair fee, and the firm can price the work at a level that will entitle
ZGuide • 39 The 2009 Am Law 100
it to earn an appropriate profit. But, such an arrangement would not be appropriate for high-risk, complex matters, because it would not serve the goal of aligning the client’s and the firm’s economic interests. The risk that the matter was more complicated than expected, or took longer than expected to complete, would be borne solely by the firm. For these types of matters, a fee arrangement combining a base fee with a contingency fee dependent upon the result of the matter would incentivize the firm and simultaneously satisfy the client’s need to control legal costs.
We do not suggest that a fundamental change in the pricing of legal services will be easy to implement. We are certain, however, that the firms that are willing to make the effort will be rewarded for having done so.
Generating Revenue and Enhancing Profitability through Client and Matter Management
This is an important time for law firms to terminate unprofit- able and marginally profitable client relationships without promising futures, and to deepen profitable ones that can be nurtured to new levels of growth.
Firms should invest in business-development practices that will keep them close to their key clients and that will help them identify additional opportunities to serve them. This can include setting up client service teams and conducting client service interviews to solicit feedback from clients; providing client-specific services, such as seminars and communications that address their specific needs; and maintaining ongoing social relationships to assure the clients that the law firm remains committed to them through these tough economic times.
Firms also should analyze each of their matters to make sure they are staffed to maximize profitability. Even though poor staffing decisions dilute profitability for law firms, and can drive up costs and anger clients, few firms have done enough to educate partners and senior associates who lead matter teams on effective staffing and management.
40 • ZGuide Driving up profitability, particularly during a recession, will require a paradigm shift in many firms: partners need to understand that not every dollar of revenue has the same value, and that what ultimately counts is the profitability— not only the size—of their book of business.
In Conclusion
It is not yet possible to predict how long the profession will suffer from the downturn. We also recognize that many of our prescriptions are tough medicine to swallow. But we are certain that the best firms will lead the industry out of the recession by seeing and seizing opportunity in change. ◆
This article was first published by Zeughauser Group as a ZG Alert on May 4, 2009.
ZGuide • 41 The Global 100
Methodology
The Global 100 ranks the world’s largest law firms by revenue, head count, and profits per partner. The charts were compiled by The American Lawyer in cooperation with Legal Week in London and published in the October 2008 issue of The American Lawyer. Though non-U.S. firms differ in structure from American law firms, a variety of steps were taken to level the playing field. Currency conversion rates for non-U.S. firms are based on the annual averages published by the U.S. Federal Reserve. A total of 112 firms were included on the 2008 Global 100 charts.
Most Revenue This chart ranks firms by gross revenue for their most recently completed fiscal year. Revenue and revenue per lawyer figures for U.S.-based law firms were obtained from The Am Law 100, except where otherwise noted. Revenue figures for law firms in Europe were obtained from Legal Week’s research. Australian and Canadian firms were surveyed by The American Lawyer. Revenue figures were rounded to the nearest $500,000.
42 • ZGuide Most Lawyers This chart ranks firms by the average number of full-time- equivalent (FTE) lawyers at the firm in its most recent fiscal year. Most of the firms on this chart, but not all, qualified for the Most Revenue chart. Firms are identified as “international” if 40 percent or more of their lawyers work outside their home country. Firms identified as “national” have no more than 45 percent of their lawyers located in one region of their home country. The geographic breakdown was obtained from from the 2007 National Law Journal survey of the 250 largest U.S. firms (the NLJ 250), or from each firm’s Web site.
Profits Per Partner Only firms included on either the Most Revenue or Most Lawyers charts are considered for this chart, in which firms are ranked by profits per equity partner for the most recent fiscal year. Profits information was obtained from the same sources that provide the revenue information. Profits per equity partner figures were rounded to the nearest $5,000.u
ZGuide • 43 The Global 100 The World’s Largest Firms, Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
Firm Profits Per Lawyers, Partners, Location 2008 Global 100 Global 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 100 Global Revenue Most Revenue Per Lawyer Rank 100 Global Lawyers Most Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 1 $4,945,000 $578,500,000 60 $2,835,000 — 212 Lawyers, 76 Equity Partners, New York
Cravath, Swaine & Moore 2 $3,300,000 $610,500,000 53 $1,480,000 — 457 Lawyers, 90 Equity Partners, New York
Sullivan & Cromwell 3 $3,055,000 $985,000,000 18 $1,600,000 77 659 Lawyers, 167 Equity Partners, New York
Slaughter and May 4 $3,035,000 $839,000,000 32 $1,505,000 — 558 Lawyers, 126 Equity Partners, London
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges 5 $3,010,000 $384,500,000 92 $1,090,000 — 312 Lawyers, 79 Equity Partners, Los Angeles
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 6 $2,970,000 $2,358,500,000 3 $1,110,000 7 2,127 Lawyers, 401 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 7 $2,875,000 $966,000,000 21 $1,295,000 55 798 Lawyers, 169 Equity Partners, New York
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft 8 $2,725,000 $587,000,000 58 $910,000 74 663 Lawyers, 76 Equity Partners, New York
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison 9 $2,595,000 $651,000,000 45 $1,065,000 74 663 Lawyers, 111 Equity Partners, New York
Linklaters 10 $2,565,000 $2,588,500,000 2 $1,055,000 3 2,448 Lawyers, 440 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy 11 $2,525,000 $642,500,000 48 $1,200,000 — 558 Lawyers, 112 Equity Partners, New York
Kirkland & Ellis 12 $2,475,000 $1,310,000,000 11 $1,085,000 20 1,270 Lawyers, 220 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Schulte Roth & Zabel 13 $2,355,000 $419,500,000 84 $1,015,000 — 425 Lawyers, 79 Equity Partners, New York
Dechert 14 $2,350,000 $836,500,000 33 $905,000 35 946 Lawyers, 163 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Clifford Chance 15 $2,305,000 $2,660,500,000 1 $940,000 2 2,828 Lawyers, 395 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Davis Polk & Wardwell 16 $2,300,000 $789,000,000 34 $1,365,000 85 623 Lawyers, 159 Equity Partners, New York
Debevoise & Plimpton 17 $2,290,000 $709,500,000 42 $1,195,000 84 631 Lawyers, 137 Equity Partners, New York
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 18 $2,280,000 $2,170,000,000 5 $1,170,000 10 1,941 Lawyers, 421 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Latham & Watkins 19 $2,270,000 $2,005,500,000 7 $1,045,000 8 1,979 Lawyers, 445 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Allen & Overy 20 $2,245,000 $2,034,000,000 6 $955,000 6 2,131 Lawyers, 363 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
44 • ZGuide
Firm Profits Per Lawyers, Partners, Location 2008 Global 100 Global 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 100 Global Revenue Most Revenue Per Lawyer Rank 100 Global Lawyers Most Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 1 $4,945,000 $578,500,000 60 $2,835,000 — 212 Lawyers, 76 Equity Partners, New York
Cravath, Swaine & Moore 2 $3,300,000 $610,500,000 53 $1,480,000 — 457 Lawyers, 90 Equity Partners, New York
Sullivan & Cromwell 3 $3,055,000 $985,000,000 18 $1,600,000 77 659 Lawyers, 167 Equity Partners, New York
Slaughter and May 4 $3,035,000 $839,000,000 32 $1,505,000 — 558 Lawyers, 126 Equity Partners, London
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges 5 $3,010,000 $384,500,000 92 $1,090,000 — 312 Lawyers, 79 Equity Partners, Los Angeles
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 6 $2,970,000 $2,358,500,000 3 $1,110,000 7 2,127 Lawyers, 401 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 7 $2,875,000 $966,000,000 21 $1,295,000 55 798 Lawyers, 169 Equity Partners, New York
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft 8 $2,725,000 $587,000,000 58 $910,000 74 663 Lawyers, 76 Equity Partners, New York
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison 9 $2,595,000 $651,000,000 45 $1,065,000 74 663 Lawyers, 111 Equity Partners, New York
Linklaters 10 $2,565,000 $2,588,500,000 2 $1,055,000 3 2,448 Lawyers, 440 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy 11 $2,525,000 $642,500,000 48 $1,200,000 — 558 Lawyers, 112 Equity Partners, New York
Kirkland & Ellis 12 $2,475,000 $1,310,000,000 11 $1,085,000 20 1,270 Lawyers, 220 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Schulte Roth & Zabel 13 $2,355,000 $419,500,000 84 $1,015,000 — 425 Lawyers, 79 Equity Partners, New York
Dechert 14 $2,350,000 $836,500,000 33 $905,000 35 946 Lawyers, 163 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Clifford Chance 15 $2,305,000 $2,660,500,000 1 $940,000 2 2,828 Lawyers, 395 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Davis Polk & Wardwell 16 $2,300,000 $789,000,000 34 $1,365,000 85 623 Lawyers, 159 Equity Partners, New York
Debevoise & Plimpton 17 $2,290,000 $709,500,000 42 $1,195,000 84 631 Lawyers, 137 Equity Partners, New York
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 18 $2,280,000 $2,170,000,000 5 $1,170,000 10 1,941 Lawyers, 421 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Latham & Watkins 19 $2,270,000 $2,005,500,000 7 $1,045,000 8 1,979 Lawyers, 445 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Allen & Overy 20 $2,245,000 $2,034,000,000 6 $955,000 6 2,131 Lawyers, 363 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
ZGuide • 45 The Global 100 The World’s Largest Firms, Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
Firm Profits Per Lawyers, Partners, Location 2008 Global 100 Global 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 100 Global Revenue Most Revenue Per Lawyer Rank 100 Global Lawyers Most Willkie Farr & Gallagher 21 $2,235,000 $603,000,000 54 $1,055,000 93 597 Lawyers, 133 Equity Partners, New York
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 22 $2,150,000 $894,000,000 27 $980,000 43 913 Lawyers, 189 Equity Partners, New York
Weil, Gotshal & Manges 23 $2,115,000 $1,175,000,000 14 $1,055,000 23 1,165 Lawyers, 192 Equity Partners, New York
Ashurst 24 $2,080,000 $646,500,000 47 $810,000 56 796 Lawyers, 131 Equity Partners, London
Herbert Smith 25 $2,075,000 $844,500,000 31 $865,000 31 979 Lawyers, 142 Equity Partners, London
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker 26 $1,920,000 $975,000,000 20 $930,000 26 1,051 Lawyers, 194 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 27 $1,900,000 $907,500,000 26 $1,080,000 47 884 Lawyers, 265 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Shearman & Sterling 28 $1,840,000 $921,000,000 25 $1,075,000 45 892 Lawyers, 183 Equity Partners, International (U.S.)
White & Case 29 $1,670,000 $1,373,000,000 10 $720,000 9 1,971 Lawyers, 287 Equity Partners, International (U.S.)
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 30 $1,660,000 $772,000,000 36 $855,000 39 923 Lawyers, 144 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
O'Melveny & Myers 31 $1,635,000 $934,000,000 24 $855,000 25 1,090 Lawyers, 224 Equity Partners, Los Angeles
SJ Berwin 32 $1,605,000 $430,500,000 82 $725,000 94 595 Lawyers, 92 Equity Partners, London
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson 33 $1,600,000 $537,500,000 63 $970,000 90 602 Lawyers, 142 Equity Partners, New York
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae 1 34 $1,580,000 $577,500,000 61 $810,000 59 783 Lawyers, 125 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Dewey Ballantine 1 35 $1,560,000 $431,000,000 81 $860,000 — 549 Lawyers, 85 Equity Partners, New York
Proskauer Rose 36 $1,555,000 $628,000,000 49 $915,000 71 692 Lawyers, 156 Equity Partners, New York
Goodwin Procter 37 $1,540,000 $611,000,000 52 $880,000 70 698 Lawyers, 174 Equity Partners, Boston
McDermott Will & Emery 38 $1,520,000 $978,000,000 19 $895,000 24 1,094 Lawyers, 281 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Kaye Scholer 39 $1,510,000 $464,000,000 76 $920,000 — 515 Lawyers, 136 Equity Partners, New York
DLA Piper International 2 40 $1,455,000 $1,074,000,000 16 $495,000 5 2,174 Lawyers, 187 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
46 • ZGuide 1 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae and Dewey Ballantine merged in October 2007 to form Dewey & LeBoeuf. The numbers presented here reflect the premerged entities. 2 DLA Piper International and DLA Piper US are treated as separate entities.
Firm Profits Per Lawyers, Partners, Location 2008 Global 100 Global 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 100 Global Revenue Most Revenue Per Lawyer Rank 100 Global Lawyers Most Willkie Farr & Gallagher 21 $2,235,000 $603,000,000 54 $1,055,000 93 597 Lawyers, 133 Equity Partners, New York
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 22 $2,150,000 $894,000,000 27 $980,000 43 913 Lawyers, 189 Equity Partners, New York
Weil, Gotshal & Manges 23 $2,115,000 $1,175,000,000 14 $1,055,000 23 1,165 Lawyers, 192 Equity Partners, New York
Ashurst 24 $2,080,000 $646,500,000 47 $810,000 56 796 Lawyers, 131 Equity Partners, London
Herbert Smith 25 $2,075,000 $844,500,000 31 $865,000 31 979 Lawyers, 142 Equity Partners, London
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker 26 $1,920,000 $975,000,000 20 $930,000 26 1,051 Lawyers, 194 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 27 $1,900,000 $907,500,000 26 $1,080,000 47 884 Lawyers, 265 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Shearman & Sterling 28 $1,840,000 $921,000,000 25 $1,075,000 45 892 Lawyers, 183 Equity Partners, International (U.S.)
White & Case 29 $1,670,000 $1,373,000,000 10 $720,000 9 1,971 Lawyers, 287 Equity Partners, International (U.S.)
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 30 $1,660,000 $772,000,000 36 $855,000 39 923 Lawyers, 144 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
O'Melveny & Myers 31 $1,635,000 $934,000,000 24 $855,000 25 1,090 Lawyers, 224 Equity Partners, Los Angeles
SJ Berwin 32 $1,605,000 $430,500,000 82 $725,000 94 595 Lawyers, 92 Equity Partners, London
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson 33 $1,600,000 $537,500,000 63 $970,000 90 602 Lawyers, 142 Equity Partners, New York
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae 1 34 $1,580,000 $577,500,000 61 $810,000 59 783 Lawyers, 125 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Dewey Ballantine 1 35 $1,560,000 $431,000,000 81 $860,000 — 549 Lawyers, 85 Equity Partners, New York
Proskauer Rose 36 $1,555,000 $628,000,000 49 $915,000 71 692 Lawyers, 156 Equity Partners, New York
Goodwin Procter 37 $1,540,000 $611,000,000 52 $880,000 70 698 Lawyers, 174 Equity Partners, Boston
McDermott Will & Emery 38 $1,520,000 $978,000,000 19 $895,000 24 1,094 Lawyers, 281 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Kaye Scholer 39 $1,510,000 $464,000,000 76 $920,000 — 515 Lawyers, 136 Equity Partners, New York
DLA Piper International 2 40 $1,455,000 $1,074,000,000 16 $495,000 5 2,174 Lawyers, 187 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
ZGuide • 47 The Global 100 The World’s Largest Firms, Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
Firm Profits Per Lawyers, Partners, Location 2008 Global 100 Global 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 100 Global Revenue Most Revenue Per Lawyer Rank 100 Global Lawyers Most Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 41 $1,435,000 $531,000,000 65 $850,000 86 622 Lawyers, 119 Equity Partners, Palo Alto
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 42 $1,430,000 $1,033,000,000 17 $830,000 21 1,266 Lawyers, 251 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Cooley Godward Kronish 43 $1,420,000 $485,000,000 70 $855,000 100 569 Lawyers, 129 Equity Partners, Palo Alto
King & Spalding 44 $1,400,000 $615,500,000 50 $815,000 58 787 Lawyers, 134 Equity Partners, Atlanta
Sidley Austin 45 $1,380,000 $1,386,000,000 9 $840,000 11 1,698 Lawyers, 332 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Bingham McCutchen 46 $1,335,000 $743,500,000 39 $900,000 49 865 Lawyers, 139 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Ropes & Gray 47 $1,330,000 $733,000,000 40 $980,000 61 773 Lawyers, 254 Equity Partners, Boston
Lovells 48 $1,325,000 $959,000,000 22 $685,000 15 1,403 Lawyers, 231 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
CMS Cameron McKenna 49 $1,300,000 $470,500,000 73 $605,000 60 777 Lawyers, 124 Equity Partners, London
Greenberg Traurig 49 $1,300,000 $1,200,000,000 12 $725,000 12 1,680 Lawyers, 288 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Baker Botts 51 $1,295,000 $577,500,000 61 $815,000 65 738 Lawyers, 200 Equity Partners, Houston
Simmons & Simmons 51 $1,295,000 $579,000,000 59 $630,000 41 918 Lawyers, 144 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Winston & Strawn 53 $1,290,000 $697,500,000 43 $825,000 46 889 Lawyers, 185 Equity Partners, Chicago
Morrison & Foerster 54 $1,275,000 $894,000,000 27 $890,000 29 1,029 Lawyers, 242 Equity Partners, San Francisco
Norton Rose 55 $1,250,000 $594,500,000 56 $625,000 34 953 Lawyers, 158 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Berwin Leighton Paisner 56 $1,240,000 $372,500,000 94 $730,000 — 510 Lawyers, 83 Equity Partners, London
Mayer Brown 56 $1,240,000 $1,183,000,000 13 $830,000 14 1,489 Lawyers, 318 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
DLA Piper US 2 58 $1,220,000 $1,134,500,000 15 $830,000 16 1,388 Lawyers, 276 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 59 $1,205,000 $752,500,000 38 $855,000 40 922 Lawyers, 199 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Baker & McKenzie 3 59 $1,205,000 $2,188,000,000 4 $605,000 1 3,626 Lawyers, 711 Equity Partners, International (U.S.)
48 • ZGuide 2 DLA Piper International and DLA Piper US are treated as separate entities. 3 Baker & McKenzie’s figures are as of June 30, 2008.
Firm Profits Per Lawyers, Partners, Location 2008 Global 100 Global 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 100 Global Revenue Most Revenue Per Lawyer Rank 100 Global Lawyers Most Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 41 $1,435,000 $531,000,000 65 $850,000 86 622 Lawyers, 119 Equity Partners, Palo Alto
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 42 $1,430,000 $1,033,000,000 17 $830,000 21 1,266 Lawyers, 251 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Cooley Godward Kronish 43 $1,420,000 $485,000,000 70 $855,000 100 569 Lawyers, 129 Equity Partners, Palo Alto
King & Spalding 44 $1,400,000 $615,500,000 50 $815,000 58 787 Lawyers, 134 Equity Partners, Atlanta
Sidley Austin 45 $1,380,000 $1,386,000,000 9 $840,000 11 1,698 Lawyers, 332 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Bingham McCutchen 46 $1,335,000 $743,500,000 39 $900,000 49 865 Lawyers, 139 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Ropes & Gray 47 $1,330,000 $733,000,000 40 $980,000 61 773 Lawyers, 254 Equity Partners, Boston
Lovells 48 $1,325,000 $959,000,000 22 $685,000 15 1,403 Lawyers, 231 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
CMS Cameron McKenna 49 $1,300,000 $470,500,000 73 $605,000 60 777 Lawyers, 124 Equity Partners, London
Greenberg Traurig 49 $1,300,000 $1,200,000,000 12 $725,000 12 1,680 Lawyers, 288 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Baker Botts 51 $1,295,000 $577,500,000 61 $815,000 65 738 Lawyers, 200 Equity Partners, Houston
Simmons & Simmons 51 $1,295,000 $579,000,000 59 $630,000 41 918 Lawyers, 144 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Winston & Strawn 53 $1,290,000 $697,500,000 43 $825,000 46 889 Lawyers, 185 Equity Partners, Chicago
Morrison & Foerster 54 $1,275,000 $894,000,000 27 $890,000 29 1,029 Lawyers, 242 Equity Partners, San Francisco
Norton Rose 55 $1,250,000 $594,500,000 56 $625,000 34 953 Lawyers, 158 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Berwin Leighton Paisner 56 $1,240,000 $372,500,000 94 $730,000 — 510 Lawyers, 83 Equity Partners, London
Mayer Brown 56 $1,240,000 $1,183,000,000 13 $830,000 14 1,489 Lawyers, 318 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
DLA Piper US 2 58 $1,220,000 $1,134,500,000 15 $830,000 16 1,388 Lawyers, 276 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 59 $1,205,000 $752,500,000 38 $855,000 40 922 Lawyers, 199 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Baker & McKenzie 3 59 $1,205,000 $2,188,000,000 4 $605,000 1 3,626 Lawyers, 711 Equity Partners, International (U.S.)
ZGuide • 49 The Global 100 The World’s Largest Firms, Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
Firm Profits Per Lawyers, Partners, Location 2008 Global 100 Global 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 100 Global Revenue Most Revenue Per Lawyer Rank 100 Global Lawyers Most Fish & Richardson 61 $1,200,000 $367,500,000 95 $905,000 — 418 Lawyers, 99 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Vinson & Elkins 61 $1,200,000 $596,000,000 55 $865,000 69 710 Lawyers, 235 Equity Partners, Houston
Hogan & Hartson 63 $1,185,000 $880,000,000 30 $850,000 28 1,031 Lawyers, 296 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Addleshaw Goddard 64 $1,175,000 $391,000,000 90 $605,000 79 646 Lawyers, 107 Equity Partners, National (U.K.)
Covington & Burling 64 $1,175,000 $467,000,000 75 $880,000 — 530 Lawyers, 178 Equity Partners, Washington, DC
Mallesons Stephen Jaques 66 $1,160,000 $457,000,000 78 $545,000 51 837 Lawyers, 187 Equity Partners, National (Australia)
Katten Muchin Rosenman 67 $1,155,000 $461,000,000 77 $750,000 82 638 Lawyers, 144 Equity Partners, Chicago
Eversheds 68 $1,105,000 $781,000,000 35 $565,000 17 1,378 Lawyers, 145 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr 69 $1,065,000 $944,000,000 23 $970,000 33 972 Lawyers, 320 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Garrigues 70 $1,025,000 $354,500,000 99 $220,000 13 1,619 Lawyers, 85 Equity Partners, Madrid
Alston & Bird 71 $1,005,000 $518,000,000 67 $725,000 66 731 Lawyers, 148 Equity Partners, Atlanta
Heller Ehrman 4 71 $1,005,000 $491,000,000 69 $805,000 81 642 Lawyers, 138 Equity Partners, San Francisco
Howrey 71 $1,005,000 $475,000,000 72 $755,000 83 632 Lawyers, 137 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Reed Smith 71 $1,005,000 $892,000,000 29 $690,000 18 1,293 Lawyers, 268 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Pinsent Masons 75 $1,000,000 $426,500,000 83 $470,000 44 907 Lawyers, 109 Equity Partners, National (U.K.)
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 76 $985,000 $590,000,000 57 $810,000 62 762 Lawyers, 174 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Denton Wilde Sapte 77 $940,000 $329,000,000 — — 95 591 Lawyers, 92 Equity Partners, London
Foley & Lardner 78 $915,000 $720,500,000 41 $780,000 32 976 Lawyers, 238 Equity Partners, Milwaukee
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal 78 $915,000 $478,000,000 71 $785,000 89 608 Lawyers, 130 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Arnold & Porter 80 $910,000 $508,000,000 68 $910,000 — 568 Lawyers, 211 Equity Partners, Washington, DC
50 • ZGuide 4 Heller Ehrman dissolved in the Fall of 2008.
Firm Profits Per Lawyers, Partners, Location 2008 Global 100 Global 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 100 Global Revenue Most Revenue Per Lawyer Rank 100 Global Lawyers Most Fish & Richardson 61 $1,200,000 $367,500,000 95 $905,000 — 418 Lawyers, 99 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Vinson & Elkins 61 $1,200,000 $596,000,000 55 $865,000 69 710 Lawyers, 235 Equity Partners, Houston
Hogan & Hartson 63 $1,185,000 $880,000,000 30 $850,000 28 1,031 Lawyers, 296 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Addleshaw Goddard 64 $1,175,000 $391,000,000 90 $605,000 79 646 Lawyers, 107 Equity Partners, National (U.K.)
Covington & Burling 64 $1,175,000 $467,000,000 75 $880,000 — 530 Lawyers, 178 Equity Partners, Washington, DC
Mallesons Stephen Jaques 66 $1,160,000 $457,000,000 78 $545,000 51 837 Lawyers, 187 Equity Partners, National (Australia)
Katten Muchin Rosenman 67 $1,155,000 $461,000,000 77 $750,000 82 638 Lawyers, 144 Equity Partners, Chicago
Eversheds 68 $1,105,000 $781,000,000 35 $565,000 17 1,378 Lawyers, 145 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr 69 $1,065,000 $944,000,000 23 $970,000 33 972 Lawyers, 320 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Garrigues 70 $1,025,000 $354,500,000 99 $220,000 13 1,619 Lawyers, 85 Equity Partners, Madrid
Alston & Bird 71 $1,005,000 $518,000,000 67 $725,000 66 731 Lawyers, 148 Equity Partners, Atlanta
Heller Ehrman 4 71 $1,005,000 $491,000,000 69 $805,000 81 642 Lawyers, 138 Equity Partners, San Francisco
Howrey 71 $1,005,000 $475,000,000 72 $755,000 83 632 Lawyers, 137 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Reed Smith 71 $1,005,000 $892,000,000 29 $690,000 18 1,293 Lawyers, 268 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Pinsent Masons 75 $1,000,000 $426,500,000 83 $470,000 44 907 Lawyers, 109 Equity Partners, National (U.K.)
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 76 $985,000 $590,000,000 57 $810,000 62 762 Lawyers, 174 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Denton Wilde Sapte 77 $940,000 $329,000,000 — — 95 591 Lawyers, 92 Equity Partners, London
Foley & Lardner 78 $915,000 $720,500,000 41 $780,000 32 976 Lawyers, 238 Equity Partners, Milwaukee
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal 78 $915,000 $478,000,000 71 $785,000 89 608 Lawyers, 130 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Arnold & Porter 80 $910,000 $508,000,000 68 $910,000 — 568 Lawyers, 211 Equity Partners, Washington, DC
ZGuide • 51 The Global 100 The World’s Largest Firms, Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
Firm Profits Per Lawyers, Partners, Location 2008 Global 100 Global 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 100 Global Revenue Most Revenue Per Lawyer Rank 100 Global Lawyers Most Hunton & Williams 81 $850,000 $653,500,000 44 $700,000 38 931 Lawyers, 248 Equity Partners, Richmond
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 82 $825,000 $530,500,000 66 $660,000 53 805 Lawyers, 155 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Duane Morris 83 $800,000 $375,000,000 93 $640,000 97 584 Lawyers, 123 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
K&L Gates 83 $800,000 $755,000,000 37 $610,000 19 1,278 Lawyers, 243 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Jones Day 85 $785,000 $1,441,000,000 8 $665,000 4 2,204 Lawyers, 510 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Fulbright & Jaworski 86 $775,000 $649,500,000 46 $695,000 35 946 Lawyers, 356 Equity Partners, Houston
Perkins Coie 87 $750,000 $394,500,000 88 $625,000 80 644 Lawyers, 159 Equity Partners, Seattle
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker 87 $750,000 $263,500,000 — — 57 793 Lawyers, 147 Equity Partners, New York
McGuireWoods 89 $745,000 $412,000,000 87 $580,000 67 721 Lawyers, 169 Equity Partners, Richmond
Holland & Knight 90 $700,000 $612,500,000 51 $595,000 30 1,026 Lawyers, 196 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Seyfarth Shaw 90 $700,000 $442,500,000 80 $610,000 63 756 Lawyers, 215 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Bryan Cave 92 $690,000 $469,000,000 74 $590,000 54 802 Lawyers, 176 Equity Partners, St. Louis
Dorsey & Whitney 93 $670,000 $367,000,000 96 $620,000 91 598 Lawyers, 192 Equity Partners, Minneapolis
Troutman Sanders 94 $665,000 $349,000,000 100 $580,000 87 617 Lawyers, 174 Equity Partners, Atlanta
Nixon Peabody 95 $655,000 $456,500,000 79 $695,000 72 673 Lawyers, 211 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Beachcroft 96 $620,000 $228,000,000 — — 99 582 Lawyers, 84 Equity Partners, National (U.K.)
Drinker Biddle & Reath 97 $575,000 $357,000,000 98 $595,000 88 609 Lawyers, 203 Equity Partners, Philadelphia
Baker & Hostetler 98 $555,000 $315,000,000 — — 98 583 Lawyers, 146 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith 99 $515,000 $193,500,000 — — 96 585 Lawyers, 64 Equity Partners, Los Angeles
Littler Mendelson 100 $410,000 $305,000,000 — — 91 598 Lawyers, 248 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
52 • ZGuide
Firm Profits Per Lawyers, Partners, Location 2008 Global 100 Global 2008 Rank PPP Equity Partner Gross Revenue Rank 100 Global Revenue Most Revenue Per Lawyer Rank 100 Global Lawyers Most Hunton & Williams 81 $850,000 $653,500,000 44 $700,000 38 931 Lawyers, 248 Equity Partners, Richmond
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 82 $825,000 $530,500,000 66 $660,000 53 805 Lawyers, 155 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Duane Morris 83 $800,000 $375,000,000 93 $640,000 97 584 Lawyers, 123 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
K&L Gates 83 $800,000 $755,000,000 37 $610,000 19 1,278 Lawyers, 243 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Jones Day 85 $785,000 $1,441,000,000 8 $665,000 4 2,204 Lawyers, 510 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Fulbright & Jaworski 86 $775,000 $649,500,000 46 $695,000 35 946 Lawyers, 356 Equity Partners, Houston
Perkins Coie 87 $750,000 $394,500,000 88 $625,000 80 644 Lawyers, 159 Equity Partners, Seattle
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker 87 $750,000 $263,500,000 — — 57 793 Lawyers, 147 Equity Partners, New York
McGuireWoods 89 $745,000 $412,000,000 87 $580,000 67 721 Lawyers, 169 Equity Partners, Richmond
Holland & Knight 90 $700,000 $612,500,000 51 $595,000 30 1,026 Lawyers, 196 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Seyfarth Shaw 90 $700,000 $442,500,000 80 $610,000 63 756 Lawyers, 215 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Bryan Cave 92 $690,000 $469,000,000 74 $590,000 54 802 Lawyers, 176 Equity Partners, St. Louis
Dorsey & Whitney 93 $670,000 $367,000,000 96 $620,000 91 598 Lawyers, 192 Equity Partners, Minneapolis
Troutman Sanders 94 $665,000 $349,000,000 100 $580,000 87 617 Lawyers, 174 Equity Partners, Atlanta
Nixon Peabody 95 $655,000 $456,500,000 79 $695,000 72 673 Lawyers, 211 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Beachcroft 96 $620,000 $228,000,000 — — 99 582 Lawyers, 84 Equity Partners, National (U.K.)
Drinker Biddle & Reath 97 $575,000 $357,000,000 98 $595,000 88 609 Lawyers, 203 Equity Partners, Philadelphia
Baker & Hostetler 98 $555,000 $315,000,000 — — 98 583 Lawyers, 146 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith 99 $515,000 $193,500,000 — — 96 585 Lawyers, 64 Equity Partners, Los Angeles
Littler Mendelson 100 $410,000 $305,000,000 — — 91 598 Lawyers, 248 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
ZGuide • 53 Assessing the Performance of Client Service Teams
© Zeughauser Group, LLC 2009
Law firms—client team enthusiasts among them—often ask for a formula to help them measure the effectiveness of their client service teams. While some firms believe their teams are essential to a systematic client-care program, others, unclear about what expectations they should have of client team results, question their value. Client service teams are formed for many different reasons, and all should not be expected to achieve the same results; therefore, a cookie-cutter performance checklist is not the proper tool for measuring team success. The key to assessing the effectiveness of a client service team is to develop a customized set of performance criteria that adequately addresses the original purpose of the team and, at the same time, accounts in real time for changes in the relationship or marketplace that may alter the team’s objectives.
In some cases, a law firm’s conclusion that a team is failing may be accurate, and the team should either be dissolved or redesigned. However, in other cases, the conclusion that teams are not achieving their intended results may signal simply that the firm needs to revisit the original performance criteria it established for the team.
For instance, a law firm that measures the success of all of its client service teams by asking whether the team has generated additional work or revenue might conclude that those teams that have not done so are failed experiments. But there are many reasons to formalize client service teams other than the short-term generation of additional dollars. In developing an assessment tool, firms also must bear in mind that a team’s purpose may have evolved since its inception. Many successful law firm client teams end up yielding results radically different than the firm originally expected because the team members have encountered and responded to opportunities and challenges not envisioned at the outset.
54 • ZGuide Revisiting the Objectives of Client Service Teams
In the process of fine-tuning performance criteria for evaluating individual client service teams, it is helpful to review the principal reasons why law firms create teams in the first place. The original law firm client service teams, now decades old, had multiple goals: they were vehicles for managing the staffing and billing for those clients and/or for institutionalizing and expanding key client relationships. Today the reasons for launching client teams are as varied as the teams themselves:
• To institutionalize and sustain the firm’s relationship with a loyal client that already sends most of its work to the firm. This kind of client team has as its principal objective maintaining the firm’s client share. The team serves a coordinating function, organizing everything the firm does for the client and facilitating communication among all lawyers and staff members who serve it. The purpose of sustaining teams is to ensure the client’s satisfaction, nurture the client relationship, and maintain consistency in the firm’s service level and responsiveness across practice areas.
• To raise the firm’s profile with a client who already uses the firm for a particular practice expertise or in a specific geographic location. The purpose of this kind of client team is to showcase the firm’s depth in a particular substantive area or geographic market and thereby expand the firm’s work for that client accordingly. Such teams focus on introducing additional lawyers in that practice or location to the client, on highlighting the reach of the firm’s expertise, and on promoting activities—including conducting targeted CLEs, publishing client-specific examples of relevant thought leadership, and orchestrating a steady stream of one-on-one interactions—to position the firm as the go-to choice for the majority, if not all, of the client’s work in that field or region.
• To cross-sell the firm’s services to a client for whom the firm already works in at least one practice area. The purpose of this kind of team is to expand the firm’s client share into additional practice areas or geographic markets. The most common of client service teams, they often are created after a firm has had an opportunity to develop a trusted advisor role in one substantive area or simultaneous with a satisfied client’s expansion of its business into new areas, which, in turn, opens up new marketing opportunities for the firm. In setting up such teams, the law firm is searching for ways to
ZGuide • 55 Assessing the Performance of Teams
capitalize either on the client’s burgeoning satisfaction with the firm or on its growth. A major focus of these teams is to help the firm develop marketplace knowledge to understand better its client’s business needs and to market its ability to meet those needs more effectively than the competition. These teams are most effective when the law firm has gotten to know the client well enough to transfer the relationship of trust it has earned in one area of practice or geographic region to other firm individuals or practices.
• To position the firm to new and prospective clients. The primary purpose of this kind of team is to introduce the law firm’s breadth and depth to clients who have just engaged it for the first time or who have no prior experience with the firm’s substantive or service strengths. These teams often grow out of strategic business planning that calls for specific practices or industry teams to penetrate new markets. They rely on relationship-building against a backdrop of visibility activities collectively designed to create top-of-mind awareness of the firm, either for its practice experience, its leadership ina particular geographic area, or its industry depth.
• To maintain or improve the quality of the firm’s client service. This kind of team is set up to assess and improve the firm’s responsiveness to a particular client. While all teams have to focus on client service in order to achieve their overarching purpose—be it business expansion or maintaining client share—these teams are designed specifically to gather and act on client feedback in order to help the firm grow closer to the client. The team coordinates firm efforts—such as client service interviews or needs assessments—and works closely with every lawyer who serves that client to make sure he or she is knowledgeable about the client’s business, aware of the challenges and opportunities it faces, and providing exceptional service customized to the client’s preferences and priorities.
• To get referrals from loyal clients. These teams are set up to focus strategically on clients that already send the firm a substantial amount of work and who theoretically can help the firm create new relationships and win new business within the client’s particular industry or geographic market. These teams typically focus on clients such as private equity funds, investment management firms, accounting firms, consulting firms, or other law firms in jurisdictions where the firm does not have on-the-ground capability.
56 • ZGuide Assessing the Performance of Teams
Forging Ahead
In evaluating client teams, firms should examine the rationale for their creation, whether they have responded accordingly to changing relationship and marketplace dynamics, and whether they are functioning as smoothly and effectively as possible. In the course of that analysis, there are many questions firms should ask that apply to all teams, regardless of why they originally were formed, such as:
• Is the team well-led? • Is the team meeting as frequently as it needs to? • Is the team exploring the full range of substantive, service, and management issues appropriate for the client? • Is the team communicating adequately with firm leadership? • Is the team communicating appropriately with the client? • Is the team following through on its action plans?
Many firms were overly enthusiastic at the launch of their client team programs, creating too many client teams and underestimating the resources and time it takes to implement an effective team. Evaluation reveals that some of these firms have paid insufficient attention to every team, with the outcome that some are less vibrant and provide less benefit than others. However, the fact that some teams need improvement or refocusing does not support the conclusion that client teams inevitably will become the latest in a long series of TQM-like fascinations that law firms have developed and abandoned. What it does suggest, however, is that firms need a rigorous approach to client teams and an equally rigorous approach to their evaluation.
Administered according to best practices, client teams can make a significant contribution to client satisfaction, development, and expansion. Always important in a competitive marketplace, they can be particularly helpful during an economic downturn. By helping law firms focus on maintaining and enhancing their most important client relationships, client teams contribute to sustaining the levels of profitability required to retain the highest-performing partners so critical to the firm’s long-term growth. Thus, having a rigorous process in place to evaluate key client teams and to maximize their value, both to clients and the firm alike, is simply good strategy. ◆
ZGuide • 57 The GlobalCorporate 100 Scorecard
Methodology
The American Lawyer’s Corporate Scorecard tracks the transactional practices of leading firms. Corporate finance is a collection of subspecialties, and the scorecard ranks firms within those areas. Unless otherwise noted, data includes only public, registered, underwritten offerings or deals transacted in 2008, including firmly underwritten rule 144a transactions, but not pure private placements or the filing of shelf registrations. Values are as of February 2009, except on the bankruptcies and emergences charts.
This year, The American Lawyer published separate charts for rankings based on number of deals/issues and volume of deals/proceeds. In the ZGuide to Leading Law Firms, we present both rankings on one chart, with the primary ranking presented first. On the charts ranking mergers and acquisitions (representation of principals), private equity deals, and bankruptcies/emergences, firms are ranked by the value of the transactions or assets at filing. On all other charts, firms are ranked by the number of issues or deals.
Mergers and Acquisitions Includes deals announced but not necessarily completed in 2008 that are valued at $100 million or more, including debt. (Debt is not included in valuations of financial companies, including banks, securities brokerage firms, credit institutions, insurance companies, and leasing companies.) Deals must involve at least one U.S.-based target, acquiror, or parent company. Transactions include asset sales, spin-offs, and private equity deals. Equity carve-outs, exchange offers, and stake repurchases are not included. On the counsel to principals chart, the law firm must have been counsel to at least one target, acquiror, investor, seller, parent, management group, shareholder group, or special committee. The counsel to principals chart is ranked by value. The counsel to investment advisers chart is ranked by number of deals.
58 • ZGuide Private Equity Includes deals with a North American-based target that were announced but not necessarily completed in 2008 that are valued at $100 million or more, including debt. Only counsel to bidders that billed more than $100,000 are given credit. A firm’s involvement is prorated, depending on its role. Equities Includes worldwide issues by U.S. corporations, including secondaries, convertible bonds, and convertible and nonconvertible preferred stock. It excludes asset-backed securities and REITs. IPOs include offerings by U.S. and foreign corporations in the U.S. marketplace. IPOs Include offerings by U.S. and foreign corporations in the U.S. marketplace. Corporate Debt Investment-grade debt includes securities with a Standard & Poor’s rating equal to or greater than BBB- and a Moody’s rating equal to or greater than Baa3, and split junk-rated securities. High-yield debt includes securities with an S&P rating equal to or less than BB+ and a Moody’s rating equal to or less than Ba1, but excludes split junk-rated securities. Securities not rated by either agency are assumed to be high-yield. Both areas exclude certificates of deposit, general term notes, and issues by federal credit agencies, sovereigns, and national governments. Asset- and Mortgage-Backed Securities Mortgage-backed securities include commercial and residential offerings. When multiple classes of securities are issued together with one legal adviser, they are counted as a single offering. Separate legal advisers are credited with the separate securities they handled. Municipal Bonds Data is based on long-term municipal new issues underwritten in 2008. Short-term, preliminary, and private placement issues are not included. Project Finance Data is based on deals signed and funded in 2008 and includes only nonrecourse and limited recourse facilities. Firms are credited for advising borrowers, concession awarders, commercial lenders, multilateral lenders, export credit agencies, guarantors, and divestors. Because several firms listed in this section are not U.S. firms, the chart includes the foreign firms’ nationality. REITs Data includes equities and debt offerings by real estate investment trusts. Bankruptcy The asset figures used to determine the largest bankruptcies are from the companies’ most recently filed annual reports prior to filing under Chapter 11. u
ZGuide • 59 The Corporate Scorecard
Mergers and Acquisitions Rank by Rank by
Value Value Number of Deals of Deals of Deals Counsel to Principals (in millions) 2009 2008 Number Deals of 2009 2008 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom $309,267 1 3 91 1 1 Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz $214,254 2 2 36 5 5 Sullivan & Cromwell $214,176 3 1 45 3 5 Cravath, Swaine & Moore $183,319 4 16 27 13 17 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett $181,818 5 4 36 5 3 Blake, Cassels & Graydon $168,839 6 7 22 19 14 Linklaters $138,245 7 — 21 22 — Debevoise & Plimpton $129,945 8 14 23 16 11 Clifford Chance $125,370 9 20 27 13 4 Latham & Watkins $116,563 10 9 47 2 2 Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg $99,360 11 24 — — 28 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer $93,755 12 15 28 11 16 Shearman & Sterling $83,078 13 19 23 16 17 Baker & McKenzie $81,852 14 17 20 24 7 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton $79,524 15 18 30 10 22 Herbert Smith/Gleiss Lutz/Stibbe 1 $71,010 16 — — — — Barbosa, Müssnich & Aragão $64,016 17 — — — — Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & $58,397 18 — 23 16 — Garrison Kirkland & Ellis $57,765 19 28 33 8 9 Weil, Gotshal & Manges $55,499 20 5 33 8 9 Ashurst $55,317 21 — — — — Jones Day $55,181 22 — 41 4 — Allen & Overy $54,914 23 10 25 15 17 Willkie Farr & Gallagher $45,872 24 — 18 29 — DLA Piper 2 $43,018 25 — 34 7 — Stikeman Elliott $40,777 26 6 19 26 8 Ropes & Gray $38,459 27 — 18 29 — Homburger Rechtsanwalte $30,747 28 — — — — Sidley Austin $28,079 29 8 16 32 25 Bär & Karrer $27,986 30 — — — — Mayer Brown $26,609 31 — 15 35 — Gianni, Origoni, Grippo & Partners $24,067 32 — — — — Davis Polk & Wardwell $23,667 33 12 28 11 13 Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt $22,994 34 23 — — 17 Goodwin Procter $20,749 35 — 22 19 — Allens Arthur Robinson $20,688 36 — — — — Hunton & Williams $20,570 37 21 — — 26 Fasken Martineau Dumoulin $18,936 38 — — — — Hogan & Hartson $18,375 39 25 22 19 21 Reed Smith $17,945 40 — — — —
1 Includes transactions by Gleiss Lutz and Stibbe, the organization’s associated firms. 2 DLA Piper is structured as a set of alliances.
60 • ZGuide Mergers and Acquisitions (continued) Rank by Rank by
Value Value Number of Deals of Deals of Deals Counsel to Principals (in millions) 2009 2008 Number Deals of 2009 2008 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati — — — 21 22 — Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher — — 22 20 24 14 O'Melveny & Myers — — — 19 26 — White & Case — — — 19 26 — Dewey & LeBoeuf — — — 18 29 — Dechert — — — 16 32 — Vinson & Elkins — — 26 16 32 12 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld — — — 15 35 — Baker Botts — — 11 15 35 23 Bingham McCutchen — — — 14 38 — Morrison & Foerster — — — 14 38 — Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker — — — 14 38 — Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman — — — 14 38 —
Source: Thomson Reuters
Rank by Rank by Number of Value Value of Deals of Deals Deals
Counsel to Investment Advisors of Number Deals 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf 48 1 1 $121,690 3 1 Latham & Watkins 40 2 2 $175,915 1 3 Sullivan & Cromwell 18 3 3 $53,564 9 4 Davis Polk & Wardwell 14 4 5 $68,582 7 2 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 14 4 5 $21,805 16 6 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 12 6 10 $74,429 5 12 O'Melveny & Myers 12 6 14 — — 16 Cravath, Swaine & Moore 11 8 9 $33,175 12 9 Covington & Burling 10 9 10 $26,076 15 10 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson 10 9 4 $41,855 11 5 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 10 9 — $52,777 10 — Weil, Gotshal & Manges 9 12 14 $156,651 2 8 Debevoise & Plimpton 8 13 — $72,997 6 — Shearman & Sterling 8 13 7 $9,697 17 13 Alston & Bird 6 15 10 — — 14 Jones Day 6 15 14 — — 15 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 5 17 10 — — 11 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & — — — $76,275 4 — Garrison Allen & Overy — — — $62,708 8 — Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy — — — $30,935 13 — Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker — — — $26,674 14 —
Source: Thomson Reuters
ZGuide • 61 The Corporate Scorecard
Private Equity Rank by Rank by
Value Value Number of Deals of Deals of Deals
Counsel to Bidders (in millions) 2009 2008 Number Deals of 2009 2008 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett $12,835 1 1 15 6 1 Weil, Gotshal & Manges $10,594 2 2 19 4 2 Debevoise & Plimpton $7,919 3 6 — — 4 Ropes & Gray $7,366 4 — 18 5 — Kirkland & Ellis $6,964 5 — 69 1 — White & Case $5,497 6 — 10 15 — Hogan & Hartson $4,980 7 — 14 8 — Freehills $4,940 8 — — — — Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt $4,828 9 3 — — 4 Blake, Cassels & Graydon $4,806 10 — 9 19 — Arnold & Porter $4,237 11 — — — — Levy & Salomão Advogados $4,200 12 — — — — Araoz & Rueda $4,100 13 — — — — De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek $4,100 13 — — — — Mallesons Stephen Jaques $4,100 13 — — — — Vinge $4,100 13 — — — — Dechert $4,016 17 9 12 10 9 Latham & Watkins $3,794 18 16 25 3 3 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton $3,555 19 4 — — 7 Linklaters $3,210 20 — — — — Jones Day — — — 27 2 — DLA Piper 1 — — — 15 6 — Stikeman Elliott — — 18 13 9 6 O'Melveny & Myers — — — 12 10 — Bingham McCutchen — — — 11 12 — Goodwin Procter — — — 11 12 — Vinson & Elkins — — 11 11 12 9 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius — — — 10 15 — Proskauer Rose — — — 10 15 — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — — — 10 15 — Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher — — — 9 19 —
1 DLA Piper is structured as a set of alliances. Source: Mergermarket
62 • ZGuide IPOs Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Issuer’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Latham & Watkins 3 1 3 — — 6 Hogan & Hartson 2 2 — — — — Vinson & Elkins 2 2 5 — — 3 White & Case — — — $19,650 1 — Cravath, Swaine & Moore — — — $1,358 2 — Holme Roberts & Owen — — — $1,104 3 —
Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Underwriter’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Davis Polk & Wardwell 5 1 1 $20,517 1 3
Latham & Watkins 3 2 2 — — 2 Andrews Kurth 2 3 13 $1,447 3 13 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 2 3 11 $365 6 1 Sullivan & Cromwell 2 3 8 $1,499 2 6 Vinson & Elkins 2 3 8 $592 4 9 Shearman & Sterling — — — $388 5 —
Source: Thomson Reuters
Equities by U.S. Corporations, Excluding IPOs Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Issuer’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 22 1 2 $13,894 4 3
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 16 2 5 $16,798 3 4 Vinson & Elkins 13 3 1 — — 6 Davis Polk & Wardwell 10 4 5 — — 1 Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 10 4 — — — — Sullivan & Cromwell — — — $28,208 1 — McGuireWoods — — — $17,658 2 — Sidley Austin — — 15 $11,916 5 8
Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Underwriter’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Davis Polk & Wardwell 44 1 1 $36,388 3 1
Sullivan & Cromwell 24 2 6 $39,149 1 2 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 20 3 9 $19,390 5 6 Latham & Watkins 17 4 5 — — 8 Shearman & Sterling 17 4 2 — — 4 Cravath, Swaine & Moore — — 3 $37,164 2 3 Morrison & Foerster — — 16 $26,856 4 18
Source: Thomson Reuters
ZGuide • 63 The Corporate Scorecard Investment-Grade Debt Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Issuer’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 O'Melveny & Myers 48 1 10 — — 21 Sidley Austin 37 2 1 $28,264 4 3
Davis Polk & Wardwell 34 3 4 $29,506 3 2 Dewey & LeBoeuf 34 3 3 $18,182 7 7 Sullivan & Cromwell 31 5 2 $40,753 1 1 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 23 6 7 $38,037 2 5 Cravath, Swaine & Moore 17 7 13 $21,406 5 16 Shearman & Sterling 16 8 9 — — 8 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 14 9 4 $11,462 10 6 Troutman Sanders 13 10 10 — — 22 McGuireWoods — — — $21,118 6 — Debevoise & Plimpton — — — $15,333 8 — Hunton & Williams — — — $13,546 9 —
Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Underwriter's Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Sidley Austin 115 1 1 $96,039 1 1 Davis Polk & Wardwell 69 2 2 $83,775 2 2
Sullivan & Cromwell 51 3 3 $52,311 5 3 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 39 4 7 $54,777 4 5 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 39 4 7 $55,998 3 4 Dewey & LeBoeuf 34 6 5 $13,530 10 8 Cravath, Swaine & Moore 33 7 6 $46,720 6 7 Shearman & Sterling 33 7 4 $30,692 7 6 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 19 9 14 — — 22 Latham & Watkins 14 10 12 — — 12 Morrison & Foerster — — — $18,673 8 9 Linklaters — — — $15,087 9 10
Source: Thomson Reuters High-Yield Debt Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Issuer’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Vinson & Elkins 7 1 6 $2,401 3 6 Latham & Watkins 5 2 2 $3,191 2 5
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 4 3 5 $3,273 1 8 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 4 3 14 — — 20 White & Case 4 3 7 — — 14 Andrews Kurth 3 6 21 — — 24 Davis Polk & Wardwell 3 6 13 — — 7
64 • ZGuide High-Yield Debt (continued) Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Issuer’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Lovells 3 6 — $1,218 10 — Shearman & Sterling 3 6 3 $1,299 7 3
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 3 6 1 $1,335 6 1 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld — — — $1,900 4 4 Bracewell & Giuliani — — — $1,400 5 — Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer — — — $1,250 8 — Sullivan & Cromwell — — — $1,248 9 —
Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Underwriter’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Cahill Gordon & Reindel 18 1 1 $5,742 1 1 Shearman & Sterling 12 2 2 $5,088 2 3 Davis Polk & Wardwell 11 3 6 $4,947 3 6
Cravath, Swaine & Moore 7 4 4 $3,724 5 2 Latham & Watkins 7 4 3 $2,120 6 4 Baker Botts 6 6 — $1,853 8 — Linklaters 6 6 15 $4,221 4 11 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 4 8 6 — — 5 Vinson & Elkins 3 9 11 $1,297 10 14 White & Case 3 9 5 — — 8 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — — — $2,000 7 10 Weil, Gotshal & Manges — — — $1,675 9 7
Source: Thomson Reuters
Asset-Backed Securities Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Issuer’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 McKee Nelson 28 1 2 $15,961 2 2 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 25 2 4 $17,994 1 4 Richards, Layton & Finger 23 3 — $8,147 3 —
Mayer Brown 17 4 5 $7,680 4 5 Maples and Calder 11 5 — — — — Kirkland & Ellis — — — $5,983 5 —
ZGuide • 65 The Corporate Scorecard
Asset-Backed Securities (continued) Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Underwriter’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 McKee Nelson 48 1 1 $31,276 1 1 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 40 2 5 $21,600 2 5 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 33 3 7 $21,191 3 8
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft 17 4 2 $12,121 4 2 Sidley Austin 15 5 4 $7,935 6 4 White & Case 15 5 — — — — Stroock & Stroock & Lavan — — — $8,493 5 —
Source: Thomson Reuters Mortgage-Backed Securities Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Issuer’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 McKee Nelson 31 1 3 $8,256 3 3 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft 16 2 2 $10,945 1 1 Thacher Proffitt & Wood 1 16 2 4 $7,365 4 4
Sidley Austin 7 4 1 $2,275 5 2 Hunton & Williams 4 5 7 $8,452 2 7
Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Underwriter’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 McKee Nelson 33 1 1 $7,443 2 1 Thacher Proffitt & Wood 1 17 2 3 $10,829 1 3 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft 13 3 2 $4,465 3 2
Latham & Watkins 6 4 9 $2,872 4 7 Sidley Austin 4 5 4 — — 4 Stroock & Stroock & Lavan — — — $2,412 5 6
1 Thacher Proffitt & Wood dissolved in December 2008. Source: Thomson Reuters Municipal Bonds Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Bond Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Chapman and Cutler 538 1 1 $8,034 11 6 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 406 2 2 $34,401 1 1 Gilmore & Bell 375 3 3 — — 13
Hawkins Delafield & Wood 325 4 6 $25,266 2 2 Quarles & Brady 324 5 5 — — 21 Dorsey & Whitney 298 6 7 — — 17 Kutak Rock 270 7 4 $11,185 7 4 Fulbright & Jaworski 262 8 8 $11,582 5 5 Ahlers & Cooney 243 9 11 — — 22
66 • ZGuide Municipal Bonds (continued) Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Bond Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 McCall, Parkhurst & Horton 238 10 9 $11,276 6 7 Peck, Shaffer & Williams 228 11 12 $5,772 14 15 Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge 221 12 15 $8,890 10 12 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 209 13 10 $11,869 4 3 Briggs and Morgan 175 14 14 — — 23 Ice Miller 168 15 16 — — 19 Sidley Austin — — — $19,249 3 — Nixon Peabody — — — $10,198 8 — Vinson & Elkins — — — $10,061 9 8 Sherman & Howard — — — $6,593 12 10 Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll — — — $6,582 13 11 K&L Gates — — — $5,447 15 —
Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Underwriter’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 171 1 3 $19,677 2 2 Andrews Kurth 137 2 5 $8,111 5 12 Hawkins Delafield & Wood 133 3 6 $12,314 4 3
Nixon Peabody 131 4 8 $21,120 1 1 Fulbright & Jaworski 129 5 7 $7,779 6 7 Kutak Rock 123 6 1 — — 5 Greenberg Traurig 106 7 2 $5,502 11 6 Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll 100 8 4 $7,598 7 4 Foley & Lardner 83 9 25 $6,155 9 18 Peck, Shaffer & Williams 77 10 9 — — 17 Sidley Austin 76 11 21 $12,995 3 11 Vinson & Elkins 76 11 11 $7,278 8 9 Chapman and Cutler 75 13 12 $4,739 15 13 McCall, Parkhurst & Horton 67 14 9 — — 10 McGuireWoods 66 15 20 — — 20 Clifford Chance — — — $6,007 10 — Winston & Strawn — — — $5,133 12 — Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge — — — $5,019 13 — Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo — — — $5,016 14 —
Source: Thomson Reuters
ZGuide • 67 The Corporate Scorecard Project Finance Rank by Rank by Number of Value of Value of Financings Financings Financings Number of of Number Firm Financings 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Allen & Overy (U.K.) 73 1 1 $23,496 2 1 Garrigues (Spain) 52 2 12 $6,411 10 16 Clifford Chance (U.K.) 47 3 3 $33,455 1 3 Freehills (Australia) 41 4 9 $5,604 12 13 Latham & Watkins 37 5 4 $9,283 7 5 Linklaters (U.K.) 37 5 6 $22,334 3 7 Allens Arthur Robinson (Australia) 35 7 8 $6,945 9 10 Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy 34 8 2 $11,455 5 4 Norton Rose (U.K.) 34 8 5 $6,124 11 6 Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Australia) 27 10 12 $4,053 16 17 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer(U.K.) 25 11 14 $5,517 13 15 Uría & Menéndez (Spain) 25 11 — $3,998 17 — Shearman & Sterling 22 13 10 $8,704 8 8 White & Case 22 13 7 $18,965 4 2 Ashurst (U.K.) 20 15 11 $3,677 19 12 Baker & McKenzie 19 16 — $9,662 6 — Jones Day 19 16 16 — — 19 Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira (Spain) 14 18 — — — — DLA Piper 1 (U.S./U.K.) 13 19 15 — — 14 Gómez-Acebo & Pombo (Spain) 13 19 — — — — J. Sagar & Associates (India) — — — $4,889 14 — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — — — $4,209 15 9 Chadbourne & Parke — — — $3,858 18 — Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A — — — $3,589 20 — Shroff & Co. (India)
1 DLA Piper is structured as a set of alliances. Source: Dealogic Project Finance: Largest Projects Project Amount Legal Adviser Legal Adviser Project Project Type (in millions) to the Lender to the Consortium Sakhalin II Second Phase Gasfield $20,000 White & Case Linklaters (Russian Federation) Exploration and Development Saudi Kayan Petrochemical $10,000 Allen & Overy Clifford Chance Petrochemical Complex Plant (Saudi Arabia) Central Asia Gas Gas Pipeline $7,500 Clifford Chance Baker & Pipeline—Kazakhstan McKenzie Section (China) Liaoning Nuclear Power Power $6,943 Jun He Law White & Case Plant Project (China) Offices Maaden-Sabic Fertilizer Petrochemical $5,619 Clifford Chance Baker & Complex Project Plant McKenzie (Saudi Arabia) Panama Canal Expansion Port $5,250 Clifford Chance Shearman & (Panama) Sterling
68 • ZGuide Project Finance: Largest Projects (continued) Project Amount Legal Adviser Legal Adviser Project Project Type (in millions) to the Lender to the Consortium Saudi Polymers Petrochemical $5,223 Clifford Chance Allen & Overy Petrochemical Project Plant (Saudi Arabia) Brisbane Airport Link Tunnel $5,138 Allens Arthur Corrs Chambers Project (Australia) Future Strategic Tanker Defense $4,966 Linklaters Clifford Chance Aircraft (U.K.) Yemen LNG Plant Project Oil Refinery/ $4,800 Milbank, Tweed Sullivan & (Yemen) Liquefied Natural Cromwell Gas Plant Mundra Ultra Mega Power $4,240 Chadbourne J. Sagar & Power Project (India) & Parke; Associates Armarchand & Mangaldas Ras Laffan C IWPP (Qatar) Power $3,900 Skadden Latham & Watkins Peru LNG Export Project Oil Refinery/ $3,868 Milbank, Tweed Skadden (Peru) Liquefied Natural Gas Plant Central Asia Gas Pipe- Gas Pipeline $3,500 Clifford Chance Freshfields line—Uzbekistan Section (Asia) Tuas Power Privatisation Power $3,066 Lovells Lee Sullivan & (Singapore) & Lee Cromwell
Source: Dealogic REIT Equities Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Issuer’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Venable 11 1 1 $951 3 3 Latham & Watkins 9 2 8 $1,019 2 7 DLA Piper 1 6 3 4 $877 4 6 Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll 3 4 4 — — 4 Clifford Chance 3 4 2 $446 6 5 K&L Gates 3 4 6 $1,971 1 1 Sullivan & Cromwell 3 4 — — — — McKee Nelson — — — $557 5 — Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell — — — $367 7 —
Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Underwriter’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Sidley Austin 8 1 1 $2,127 2 2 Hunton & Williams 6 2 2 $874 3 6 DLA Piper 1 4 3 8 $448 5 8 Clifford Chance 3 4 4 — — 3 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson 3 4 4 $2,528 1 1 Sullivan & Cromwell 3 4 4 $730 4 10 Vinson & Elkins 3 4 — $346 7 — Hogan & Hartson — — — $401 6 7
1 DLA Piper is structured as a set of alliances. Source: Thomson Reuters
ZGuide • 69 The Corporate Scorecard REIT Debt Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Issuer’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Alston & Bird 2 1 — $625 4 — Baker & Daniels 1 2 — $1,497 1 — Clifford Chance 1 2 7 $746 3 2
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell 1 2 7 $121 6 7 Mayer Brown 1 2 — $599 5 — McGrath North Mullin & Kratz 1 2 — $8 8 — Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 1 2 — $75 7 — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 1 2 3 $1,091 2 6
Rank by Number of Rank by Issues Proceeds Issues Proceeds Underwriter’s Counsel of Number 2009 2008 (in millions) 2009 2008 Clifford Chance 2 1 2 $625 3 6 Hunton & Williams 2 1 3 $83 5 7 Sidley Austin 2 1 1 $1,618 1 1
Shearman & Sterling 1 4 — $599 4 — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 1 4 3 $746 2 2
Source: Thomson Reuters
Largest Bankruptcies
Assets Creditors Committee (in millions) Filing Date Company Description Jurisdiction Debtor’s Counsel and Other Counsel* $691,063 September Lehman Investment Southern Bortstein Milbank, Tweed; 2008 Brothers Bank District Legal; Quinn Emanuel Holdings Inc. of New Curtis, Mallet- York Prevost; McKee Nelson; McKenna Long; Reilly Pozner; Weil, Gotshal $327,913 September Washington Savings Delaware Davis Wright; Akin Gump; Miller & 2008 Mutual, Inc. & Loan Gibson, Dunn; Chevalier; Pepper Holding McKee Hamilton; Company Nelson; Shearman & Perkins Coie; Sterling Richards, Layton; Simpson Thacher; The Law Office of John W. Wolfe; Weil, Gotshal $32,734 July 2008 IndyMac Bank Central Alston & Bird Bancorp, Holding District of Inc. Company California $13,409 November Downey Bank Delaware Richards, 2008 Financial Holding Layton Corp. Company
70 • ZGuide Largest Bankruptcies (continued)
Assets Creditors Committee (in millions) Filing Date Company Description Jurisdiction Debtor’s Counsel and Other Counsel* $13,150 December Tribune Media & Delaware Cole Schotz; Chadbourne & 2008 Company Entertain- Jenner & Parke; Landis Rath ment Block; Jones Day; McDer- mott Will; Paul, Hastings; Reed Smith; Sidley Austin $12,891 June 2008 Fremont Financial Central Epstein Becker; Klee, Tuchin; General Services District of Patton Boggs; Weiland, Golden Corp. Holding California Stutman Company Treister; Willenken Wilson $6,140 July 2008 SemGroup, Diversified Delaware Bifferato Blank Rome; L.P. Energy Gentilotti; Quinn Emanuel. Services Conner & Official Producers Winters; Hall, Committee Counsel: Estill; Ogilvy Andrews Kurth; Cole Renault; Schotz. Richards, Equity Committee Layton; Weil, Counsel: Morrison & Gotshal Foerster; Polsinelli Shalton $5,537 November Franklin Savings Delaware Stevens & Lee 2008 Bank Corp. & Loan Holding Company $4,722 September Luminent Real Estate Maryland Faegre & Arent Fox 2008 Mortgage Investment Benson; Capital, Inc. Trust Hunton & Williams; O'Shea Partners; Shapiro Sher $4,102 December PFF Diversified Delaware Paul, Hastings; Blank Rome 2008 Bancorp, Financial Richards, Inc. Services Layton
$3,874 December Pilgrim's Poultry Northern Gardere Andrews Kurth 2008 Pride Corp. Products District of Wynne; Weil, Texas Gotshal $3,854 November LandAmeri- Insurance Eastern McGuire- Akin Gump; 2008 ca Financial Under- District of Woods; Bingham Group, Inc. writer Virginia Williams McCutchen; Mullen; LeClairRyan; Willkie Farr Tavenner & Beran $3,746 November Circuit City Consumer Eastern Kirkland & Gowling Lafleur; 2008 Stores, Inc. Electronics District of Ellis; Mc- Pachulski Stang; Virginia GuireWoods; Tavenner & Beran Skadden
*Firms listed are Creditors Committee Counsel unless noted otherwise. Source: BankruptcyData.com
ZGuide • 71 The Corporate Scorecard
Largest Bankruptcies (continued)
Assets Creditors Committee (in millions) Filing Date Company Description Jurisdiction Debtor’s Counsel and Other Counsel* $2,891 August WCI Commu- Home Delaware Fox Rothschild; Akin Gump; 2008 nities, Inc. Builder and The Bayard Pachulski Stang Real Estate Firm; White & Services Case $2,842 January TOUSA, Inc. Home Southern Berger Akin Gump; 2008 Builder District of Singerman; Robbins, Russell; Florida Greenberg Stearns Weaver Traurig; Kirkland & Ellis $1,864 October VeraSun Ethanol Delaware Skadden Akin Gump; 2008 Energy Corp. Production Greenberg Traurig
$1,740 May 2008 Linens 'n Home Delaware Gardere Cole Schotz; Things, Inc. Furnishings Wynne; Otterbourg, Morgan, Lewis; Steindler Richards, Layton $1,734 May 2008 Tropicana Casino Delaware Kirkland & Ellis; Bose McKinney; Entertain- Hotels Paul, Hastings; Lionel, Sawyer; Mc- ment, LLC Richards, Glinchey Stafford; Layton Morris, Nichols; Stroock & Stroock; Watkins Ludlam $1,731 January Quebecor Commercial Southern Arnold & Akin Gump; Bennett 2008 World (USA), Printing District Porter; Jones; Lowenstein Inc. Services of New Richards Kibbe Sandler York $1,638 December Hawaiian Telecommu- Hawaii Cades Schutte; Morrison & 2008 Telcom Com- nications Klehr, Harrison Foerster; Moseley, munications, Biehl Inc.
*Firms listed are Creditors Committee Counsel unless noted otherwise. Source: BankruptcyData.com
Largest Emergences
Assets Creditors Committee and (in millions) Filing Date Company Description Jurisdiction Debtor’s Counsel Other Counsel* $27,216 December Calpine Corp. Power Southern Bracewell Akin Gump; 2005 Production District of & Giuliani; Fasken Martineau; New York Covington & Morgenstern Jacobs. Burling; Curtis, Equity Committee Mallet-Prevost; Counsel: Fried, Frank. Davis Wright; Examiners Counsel: Dickstein Togut, Segal Shapiro; Holland & Hart; Kirkland & Ellis; Lenczner & Slaght; Sutherland Asbill; Thelen Reid1
72 • ZGuide Largest Emergences (continued)
Assets Creditors Committee and (in millions) Filing Date Company Description Jurisdiction Debtor’s Counsel Other Counsel* $26,147 April 2007 New Real Estate Delaware Allen Matkins; Blank Rome; Hahn & Century Investment Baute & Tidus; Hessen. Financial Trust Hennigan, Audit Committee Corp. Bennett; Howrey; Counsel: Heller Irell & Manella; Ehrman. Manatt, Phelps; Examiners Counsel: O'Melveny K&L Gates; Saul Ewing & Myers; Richards, Layton; Sheppard, Mullin; Skadden $9,047 March 2006 Dana Corp. Auto Parts Southern Berwin Leighton; Berwin Leighton; District of Dorsey & Halperin & Associates; New York Whitney; Hunton Kramer Levin; & Williams; McDermott Will; Stahl Jones Day; Cowen. Katten Muchin; Equity Committee Pachulski Stang; Counsel: Fried, Frank. Skadden Retiree Committee Counsel: Stahl Cowen $4,772 September NetBank, Inc. Financial Middle Holland & Knight; Kilpatrick Stockton; 2007 Holding District of McNair Law Rogers Towers Company Florida Firm $3,342 December Solutia Inc. Chemicals Southern Dinsmore & Akin Gump; Haskell 2003 and Allied District of Shohl; Gibson, Slaughter; Saul Ewing; Products New York Dunn; Hodgson Spencer Fane. Russ; Husch Retiree Committee Blackwell; Counsel: Haskell Kirkland & Ellis; Slaughter. Quinn Emanuel; Equity Committee Sanford P. Rosen Counsel: Pillsbury & Associates Winthrop $2,075 October Dura Auto Parts Delaware Baker & Bennett Jones; 2006 Automotive McKenzie; Bifferato Gentilotti; Systems, Inc. Banner & Kramer Levin; Witcoff; Kirkland Young Conaway & Ellis; Richards, Layton; Togut, Segal $1,419 February SIRVA, Inc. Relocation Southern Kirkland & Ellis; Pachulski Stang 2008 and Moving District of Togut, Segal New York $1,385 October Movie Video Tape Eastern Kirkland & Ellis; Miles & Stockbridge; 2007 Gallery, Inc. Rental District of Kutak Rock Pachulski Stang Virginia $528 July 2008 Vertis, Inc. Newspaper Delaware DLA Piper; Publishing Richards, Layton; Weil, Gotshal $414 March 2003 SONICblue, Consumer Northern Fenwick & West; Duane Morris; J and Inc. Electronics District of Jeffer, Mangels; J Attorneys at Law; California O'Melveny & Krieg, Keller; Myers; Pillsbury Levene, Neale. Winthrop Trustee Counsel: Alston & Bird; Friedman Dumas
*Firms listed are Creditors Committee Counsel unless noted otherwise. 1 Thelen Reid & Priest dissolved in November 2008. Source: BankruptcyData.com
ZGuide • 73 The Corporate Scorecard
74 • ZGuide Law Firm Index
A Adams and Reese, 22, 32 Addleshaw Goddard, 50 Ahlers & Cooney, 66 Akerman Senterfitt, 20, 31 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, 6, 26, 48, 61, 65, 70, 71, 72, 73 Allen & Overy, 44, 60, 61, 68, 69 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, 14, 25, 73 Allens Arthur Robinson, 60, 68, 69 Alston & Bird, 12, 29, 50, 61, 70, 73 Andrews Kurth, 12, 27, 63, 64, 67, 71 Araoz & Rueda, 62 Arent Fox, 14, 28, 71 Armarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co., 68, 69 Arnold & Porter, 12, 27, 50, 62, 72 Ashurst, 46, 60, 68
B Bär & Karrer, 60 Baker & Daniels, 22, 32, 70 Baker & Hostetler, 18, 31, 52 Baker & McKenzie, 8, 31, 48, 60, 68, 73 Baker Botts, 8, 25, 48, 61, 65 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, 22, 33 Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, 22, 33, 67, 69 Banner & Witcoff, 73 Barbosa, Müssnich & Aragão, 60 Barnes & Thornburg, 18, 28 Baute & Tidus, 73 Bayard Firm, The, 72 Beachcroft, 52 Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, 16, 28 Bennett Jones, 72, 73 Berger Singerman, 72 Berwin Leighton Paisner, 48, 73 Bifferato Gentilotti, 71, 73 Bingham McCutchen, 6, 27, 48, 61, 62, 71 Blake, Cassels & Graydon, 60, 62 Blank Rome, 18, 30, 71, 73 Boies, Schiller & Flexner, 4, 24 Bortstein Legal, 70
ZGuide • 75 Law Firm Index
Bose McKinney, 72 Bracewell & Giuliani, 12, 27, 65, 72 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, 20, 28 Briggs and Morgan, 67 Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, 12, 28 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, 16, 28 Bryan Cave, 16, 32, 52 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, 18, 33
C Cades Schutte, 72 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, 6, 27, 44, 66 Cahill Gordon & Reindel, 4, 24, 65 Carlton Fields, 16, 29 Chadbourne & Parke, 10, 30, 68, 69, 71 Chapman and Cutler, 12, 26, 66, 67 Choate, Hall & Stewart, 8, 24 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, 4, 25, 46, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 Clifford Chance, 44, 60, 67, 68, 69, 70 CMS Cameron McKenna, 48 Cole Shotz, 71, 72 Conner & Winters, 71 Cooley Godward Kronish, 8, 26, 48 Corrs Chambers Westgarth, 69 Covington & Burling, 8, 25, 50, 61, 72 Cozen O'Connor, 18, 32 Cravath, Swaine & Moore, 4, 24, 44, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65 Crowell & Moring, 10, 28 Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira, 68 Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, 10, 32, 70, 72
D Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, 60 Davis Polk & Wardwell, 4, 24, 44, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65 Davis Wright Tremaine, 20, 30, 70, 72 Day Pitney, 18, 31 De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, 62 Debevoise & Plimpton, 4, 24, 44, 60, 61, 62, 64 Dechert, 4, 25, 44, 61, 62 Denton Wilde Sapte, 50 Dewey & LeBoeuf, 6, 28, 61, 64 Dewey Ballantine, 46 Dickinson Wright, 20, 31 Dickstein Shapiro, 10, 28, 72 Dinsmore & Shohl, 22, 33, 73 DLA Piper, 60, 62, 68, 69, 73 DLA Piper International, 46 DLA Piper US, 8, 26, 48 Dorsey & Whitney, 16, 30, 52, 66, 73 Dow Lohnes, 16, 29 Drinker Biddle & Reath, 18, 31, 52 Duane Morris, 16, 29, 52, 73 Dykema Gossett, 20, 31
76 • ZGuide E Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, 18, 33, 67 Epstein Becker & Green, 18, 32, 71 Eversheds, 50
F Faegre & Benson, 18, 30, 71 Fasken Martineau Dumoulin, 60, 72 Fenwick & West, 14, 29, 73 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, 10, 26 Fish & Richardson, 10, 27, 50 Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, 14, 28 Foley & Lardner, 12, 27, 50, 67 Foley Hoag, 12, 29 Fox Rothschild, 18, 32, 72 Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, 12, 33 Freehills, 62, 68 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, 44, 60, 65, 68, 69 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, 8, 27, 46, 61, 69, 72, 73 Friedman Dumas & Springwater, 73 Frost Brown Todd, 22, 32 Fulbright & Jaworski, 12, 27, 52, 66, 67
G Gardere Wynne Sewell, 14, 27, 71, 72 Garrigues, 50, 68 Gianni, Origoni, Grippo & Partners, 60 Gibbons, 16, 31 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, 6, 24, 46, 61, 62, 64, 70, 73 Gilmore & Bell, 66 Gleiss Lutz, 60 Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, 68 Goodwin Procter, 6, 25, 46, 60, 62 Gordon & Rees, 14, 33 Goulston & Storrs, 18, 27 Gowling Lafleur Henderson, 71 GrayRobinson, 22, 31 Greenberg Traurig, 8, 27, 48, 67, 72
H Hahn & Hessen, 73 Hall, Estill, 71 Halperin & Associates, 73 Haskell Slaughter, 73 Hawkins Delafield & Wood, 66, 67 Haynes and Boone, 14, 28 Heller Ehrman, 50, 73 Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman, 73 Herbert Smith, 46, 60 Herrick, Feinstein, 8, 27 Hinshaw & Culbertson, 18, 32 Hodgson Russ, 73 Hogan & Hartson, 8, 26, 50, 60, 62, 63, 69 Holland & Hart, 22, 33, 72 Holland & Knight, 16, 30, 52, 73 ZGuide • 77 Law Firm Index
Holme Roberts & Owen, 22, 31, 63 Homburger Rechtsanwalte, 60 Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn, 18, 25 Howrey, 8, 26, 50, 73 Hughes Hubbard & Reed, 8, 26 Hunton & Williams, 14, 28, 52, 60, 64, 66, 69, 70, 71, 73 Husch Blackwell Sanders, 18, 31, 73
I Ice Miller, 20, 31, 67 Irell & Manella, 4, 24, 73
J J and J Attorneys at Law, 73 J. Sagar & Associates, 68, 69 Jackson Lewis, 20, 31 Jackson Walker, 16, 28 Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, 6, 25, 73 Jenner & Block, 12, 26, 71 Jones Day, 14, 30, 52, 60, 61, 62, 68, 71, 73 Jun He Law Offices, 68
K K&L Gates, 12, 29, 52, 67, 69, 73 Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, 4, 25 Katten Muchin Rosenman, 10, 26, 50, 73 Kaye Scholer, 6, 25, 46 Kelley Drye & Warren, 10, 29 Kenyon & Kenyon, 14, 30 Kilpatrick Stockton, 16, 30, 73 King & Spalding, 8, 28, 48 Kirkland & Ellis, 4, 24, 44, 60, 62, 65, 71, 72, 73 Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern, 71 Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, 72 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, 20, 30 Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, 6, 26, 73 Krieg, Keller, Sloan, Reilley & Roman, 73 Kutak Rock, 22, 32, 66, 67, 73
L Landis Rath & Cobb, 71 Latham & Watkins, 6, 25, 44, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69 Lathrop & Gage, 22, 33 Law Office of John W. Wolfe, 70 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, 46 LeClairRyan, 71 Lenczner & Slaght, 72 Levene, Neale, Bender, Rankin & Brill, 73 Levy & Salomão Advogados, 62 Lewis and Roca, 20, 31 Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, 20, 33, 52 Linklaters, 44, 60, 62, 64, 65, 68, 69 Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, 72 Littler Mendelson, 20, 32, 52 Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, 10, 26, 69, 70 78 • ZGuide Loeb & Loeb, 6, 25 Lovells, 48, 65, 69 Lovells Lee & Lee, 69 Lowenstein Sandler, 10, 28, 72 Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 20, 32
M Mallesons Stephen Jaques, 50, 62, 68 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, 12, 29, 73 Maples and Calder, 65 Mayer Brown, 10, 30, 48, 60, 65, 70 McCall, Parkhurst & Horton, 67 McCarter & English, 18, 32 McDermott Will & Emery, 6, 24, 46, 71, 73 McGlinchey Stafford, 72 McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, 70 McGuireWoods, 16, 30, 52, 63, 64, 67, 71 McKee Nelson, 10, 26, 65, 66, 69, 70 McKenna Long & Aldridge, 14, 30, 70 McNair Law Firm, 73 Michael Best & Friedrich, 20, 30 Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 4, 24, 44, 61, 68, 69, 70 Miles & Stockbridge, 73 Miller & Chevalier, 70 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, 22, 33 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, 12, 29, 67 Moore & Van Allen, 14, 29 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 6, 26, 48, 62, 72 Morgenstern Jacobs, 72 Morris, Manning & Martin, 12, 27 Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, 72 Morrison & Foerster, 10, 28, 48, 61, 63, 64, 71, 72 Moseley, Biehl, Tsugawa, Lau & Muzzi, 72 Munger, Tolles & Olson, 8, 24
N Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, 20, 31 Nixon Peabody, 16, 30, 52, 67 Norton Rose, 48, 68
O Ogilvy Renault, 71 Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 22, 32 O'Melveny & Myers, 6, 26, 46, 61, 62, 64, 73 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, 8, 27, 46, 65, 66, 67 O'Shea Partners, 71 Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, 60, 62 Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen, 72
P Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, 71, 72, 73 Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, 10, 26 Patton Boggs, 14, 28, 71 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, 6, 25, 46, 61, 71, 72 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, 4, 24, 44, 60, 61 ZGuide • 79 Law Firm Index
Peck, Shaffer & Williams, 67 Pepper Hamilton, 16, 30, 70 Perkins Coie, 14, 29, 52, 70 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, 10, 27, 50, 61, 64, 70, 73 Pinsent Masons, 50 Polsinelli Shalton, 71 Polsinelli Shughart, 20, 33 Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, 20, 33 Powell Goldstein, 22, 33 Proskauer Rose, 8, 27, 46, 62
Q Quarles & Brady, 22, 31, 66 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, 4, 24, 44, 70, 71, 73
R Reed Smith, 12, 29, 50, 60, 71 Reilly Pozner, 70 Richards Kibbe & Orbe, 72 Richards, Layton & Finger, 65, 70, 71, 72, 73 Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber, 72 Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, 10, 25 Robinson & Cole, 20, 33 Rogers Towers, 73 Ropes & Gray, 6, 25, 48, 60, 62
S Sanford P. Rosen & Associates, 73 Saul Ewing, 22, 32, 73 Schiff Hardin, 16, 27 Schulte Roth & Zabel, 4, 25, 44 Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, 16, 33 Seyfarth Shaw, 16, 29, 52 Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler, 71 Shearman & Sterling, 6, 26, 46, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 68, 70 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, 8, 27, 73 Sherman & Howard, 67 Shook, Hardy & Bacon, 10, 29 Sidley Austin, 6, 26, 48, 60, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71 Sills Cummis & Gross, 12, 29 Simmons & Simmons, 48 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, 4, 24, 44, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 70 SJ Berwin, 46 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, 4, 25, 44, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 Slaughter and May, 44 Snell & Wilmer, 16, 30 Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, 14, 29, 50 Spencer Fane Britt & Browne, 73 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, 14, 32, 52, 67 Stahl Cowen, 73 Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, 72 Steptoe & Johnson, 12, 27 Stevens & Lee, 12, 25, 71
80 • ZGuide Stibbe, 60 Stikeman Elliott, 60, 62 Stinson Morrison Hecker, 20, 30 Stoel Rives, 22, 31 Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, 8, 27, 66, 72 Stutman Treister & Glatt, 71 Sullivan & Cromwell, 4, 24, 44, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 69 Sullivan & Worcester, 16, 29 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, 14, 28, 72
T Tavenner & Beran, 71 Thacher Proffitt & Wood, 22, 33, 66 Thelen Reid & Priest, 72, 73 Thompson & Knight, 12, 29 Thompson Coburn, 20, 31 Thompson Hine, 20, 32 Togut, Segal & Segal, 72, 73 Townsend and Townsend and Crew, 16, 31 Troutman Sanders, 18, 31, 52, 64
U Uría & Menéndez, 68
V Vedder Price, 14, 26 Venable, 14, 28, 69 Vinge, 62 Vinson & Elkins, 8, 25, 50, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69 Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, 22, 32
W Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 4, 24, 44, 60, 63 Watkins Ludlam Winter & Stennis, 72 Weil, Gotshal & Manges, 4, 24, 46, 60, 61, 62, 65, 70, 71, 73 Weiland, Golden, Smiley, Wang Ekvall & Strok, 71 White & Case, 6, 29, 46, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 72 Wiley Rein, 10, 26 Willenken Wilson Loh & Lieb, 71 Williams & Connolly, 10, 24 Williams Mullen, 18, 32, 71 Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 4, 24, 46, 60, 71 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, 10, 26, 50 Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, 14, 33, 52 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 6, 28, 48, 61 Winstead, 18, 30 Winston & Strawn, 8, 25, 48, 67 WolfBlock, 22, 33 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, 18, 30
Y Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, 73
ZGuide • 81 Notes
82 • ZGuide ZEUGHAUSER GROUP is the firm of choice for legal industry leaders seeking to increase their competitive advantage and profitability, enhance market position, and strengthen organizational culture.
STRATEGIC GROWTH SERVICES • Mergers and Acquisitions • Strategic Growth Planning at the Firm, Practice, Industry, and Office Levels • Governance, Structure, Profitability, Pricing, and Compensation Counseling
STRATEGIC MARKETING SERVICES • Strategic Marketing and Business Development Planning at the Firm, Practice, Industry, Office, and Client Levels • Positioning Strategies and Branding Programs • Client Service, Satisfaction, and Teaming Programs • Marketing Organizational Models and Assessments
LEADERSHIP ROUNDTABLES • ZG Leadership Roundtable for Law Firm Chairs and Managing Partners • ZG Leadership Roundtable for Chief Marketing Officers
ZGuide • 83 UIDE
Ron Beard [email protected] t: 949•360•0122 m: 949•887•3296
Jerome L. Coben [email protected] t: 323•937•8195uide m: 323•397•6009
Mozhgan Mizban [email protected] t: 415•868•0100 m: 415•279•4584
Norm Rubenstein [email protected] t: 202•483•7089 m: 202•256•2668UIDE
Jack Walker [email protected] t: 323•664•2881 m: 213•215•5871
Mary K Young [email protected] t: 301•320•1518 m: 301•346•9878
Peter Zeughauser [email protected] t: 949•760•6800 m: 949•878•7444
Kent Zimmermann [email protected] m: 312•810•8008
Lonnie Zwerin [email protected] t: 415•387•4623 m: 415•307•4623 Zeughauser Group’s 2009 Pocket Guide to Leading Law Firms