AmLaw 100 Rankings: Is the Golden Age of Growth Over?
April 30, 2008, 11:48 am
AmLaw 100 Rankings: Is the Golden Age of Growth Over?
Posted by Ashby Jones
For a lot of law-firm managing-partner types, today is a big day, as the AmLaw 100 hits their in-boxes. The AmLaw 100, or the American Lawyer magazine’s annual list of the top-grossing law firms for the year previous, represents not only a boatload of work for AmLaw staffers. For law firm heads, it’s a report card of sorts. For law students and lawyers looking to move laterally, it’s a handy reference guide to who’s hot and who’s not. For GCs and other industry watchers, it’s a snapshot of BigLaw as a whole.
And what, looking through the AmLaw 100 prism, do we make of 2007? To Aric Press, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, the year marks the end of BigLaw’s “Golden Age,” a half-decade of better-than-average growth in both revenue-per-lawyer and profits-per-partner. “The great run may be over,” writes Press. “The sharp decrease in deal activity is well-known. And the classic countercyclical practices — litigation and bankruptcy — have not yet lifted all boats.”
Still, the year turned in some impressive numbers. The top two finishers, Skadden Arps and Latham & Watkins, both topped $2 billion in gross revenues and saw increases of some 17% and 23%, respectively.
Some other noteworthy results:
- In the profits-per-partner ranking, New York heavyweight Wachtell Lipton again topped the charts, at nearly $4.95 million. Wachtell was followed by Cravath ($3.3 million); Sullivan & Cromwell ($3.06 million); Quinn Emanuel ($3.01 million); and Simpson Thacher ($2.88 million). The year was especially good for Quinn Emanuel, which saw a 23% jump in PPP.
- Some of the better showings in the gross-revenue department: Latham (revenues up 23.5% over ‘06); Baker & McKenzie (20%); Simpson Thacher (21%); Reed Smith (39%); and Proskauer (22%). On the other end: Holland & Knight (revenues down .2% from ‘06); Heller Ehrman (-3.6%); and Kilpatrick Stockton (-.2%).
- One of our favorite charts is the value rankings, which lists, in order, the firms that need the fewest lawyers to generate $10 million in revenue. Topping the chart was Wachtell (5.42 lawyers to generate $10 million); Sullivan & Cromwell (12.05 lawyers); and Cravath (13.89 lawyers).
LB Readers, the floor is yours.
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/04/30/amlaw-100-rankings-is-the-golden-age-of-growth-over/?mod=WSJBlog/trackback/ Save
THE 2008 AM LAW 100: Lessons of The Am Law 100
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The big firms just finished the best five-year economic run since we began keeping records. Now, head count and salaries have outpaced revenue and rates. Is the Golden Age over?
2008
- THE AM LAW 100 2008: Proskauer’s Premium Play
- THE AM LAW 100 2008: Behind the Numbers
- THE AM LAW 100 2008: Thelen’s Return
- THE AM LAW 100 2008: Number Five With A Bullet
- THE AM LAW 100 2008: Shaking Up L.A.
- THE AM LAW 100 2008: The Sky’s the Limit
- THE AM LAW 100 2008: Goodwin’s Procter’s Grand Plan
- THE AM LAW 100 2008: Methodology
- THE AM LAW 100 2008: Stop-Loss
- THE 2008 AM LAW 100: Lessons of The Am Law 100
- THE AM LAW 100 2008: The Giving Tree?
- THE AM LAW 100 2008: Tiering Up
- THE AM LAW 100 2008: No Place for Excess
- The Art of Retention
- Pumped Up
http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/surveys_rankings.jsp
Lessons of The Am Law 100: Is the Golden Age Over?
The American Lawyer
April 30, 2008
It was fun while it lasted. In 2007, The Am Law 100, the top-grossing law firms in the U.S., finished the best sustained growth spurt since The American Lawyer began tracking firm financials in 1984. For the first time, firms showed five consecutive years of better-than-average growth in revenue per lawyer and profits per partner. This Golden Age for law firms has been fueled by surging demand for high-end legal services and unrelenting rate hikes. But now, there are signs the great run may be over.
Copyright 2008 ALM Properties, Inc. All rights reserved.
Page printed from: http://www.law.com
Lessons of The Am Law 100: Is the Golden Age Over?
Aric Press and John O’Connor
The American Lawyer
04-30-2008
It was fun while it lasted. In 2007, The Am Law 100 — the top-grossing law firms in the United States — finished the best sustained growth spurt since The American Lawyer began tracking firm financials in 1984. For the first time, the firms showed five consecutive years of better-than-average growth in both revenue per lawyer, the key measure of law firm financial success, and profits per partner, the metric that has turned law firm managers into contortionists.
How good was this run? Since 2003, average RPL has increased by $205,000. Before that, it took the firms 10 years, from 1992 to 2002, to improve that much. The relative gain in profits was even more impressive. Since 2003, PPP has jumped by $438,000, to an average of $1.3 million. It took The Am Law 100 firms 15 years, from 1987 to 2002, to make a similar gain.
This Law Firm Golden Age has been fueled by surging demand for high-end legal services and unrelenting annual rate hikes. Partners reaped the benefits of hard work — and of pulling up the ladder behind them. Stoking these gains has been a dramatic slowdown in the naming of new equity partners. Since 2001, the growth in equity partners has been above the 21-year annual average of 3.2 percent only once, in 2003. Last year the average equity partnership grew by 2.6 percent, or almost five partners.
Even in these bountiful times, five was a big number. Thirty-seven firms shrunk their equity partnerships. Four held them flat. And eight increased them by one or two. A handful of firms managed to lose partners and PPP. Notable in that category are Dickstein Shapiro; Heller Ehrman; and Akin Gump (which benefited from a contingency in 2006).
Other highlights from The Am Law 100 report:
Averages and year-to-year comparisons can often prove misleading. To add a little perspective, we ran a series of 10-year trend lines for the big firms. We found that some firms ended more or less where they started. But the story for 59 of The Am Law 100 firms in 1998 was more turbulent. Twelve died or disappeared into mergers. Twenty improved their RPL rank by double digits, while 15 dropped by double digits. Seven moved from the bottom half of the list to the top; five dropped from the top half to the bottom. And three firms that were not on the 1998 list — Quinn Emanuel, the litigation wunderkind; Finnegan Henderson, the IP specialty shop; and Fish & Richardson, an IP and litigation house that scored a big contingency in 2007 — placed in the top 30.
The biggest upward movers: Dechert (up 35 places), Akin Gump (up 34), and DLA Piper (up 31). The biggest losers: Chadbourne (down 44 spots), and Dewey Ballantine, King & Spalding and White & Case (all down 20).
We hope you weren’t working so hard that you didn’t enjoy the best seasons of your careers.
[Note: For a complete list of the 10-year rankings, please go to AmericanLawyer.com.]
RELATED INFORMATION:
AM LAW 100 CHARTS:
Measuring the Efficiency Factor
Two Firms Pass the $2 Billion Mark
Wachtell Heads the Value Rankings (Again)
RELATED ARTICLES:
For more of the latest findings on the Am Law 100 firms, see the related series of American Lawyer reports, “THE AM LAW 100 2008: Behind the Numbers: Noteworthy trends and newsmaking firms in this year’s Am Law 100.”
THE 2008 AM LAW 100: Lessons of The Am Law 100
The big firms just finished the best five-year economic run since we began keeping records.
The American Lawyer
By Aric Press and John O’Connor
May 1, 2008
It was fun while it lasted. In 2007, The Am Law 100-the top-grossing law firms in the United States-finished the best sustained growth spurt since The American Lawyer began tracking firm financials in 1984. For the first time, the firms showed five consecutive years of better-than-average growth in both revenue per lawyer, the key measure of law firm financial success, and profits per partner, the metric that has turned law firm managers into contortionists.
How good was this run? Since 2003, average RPL has increased by $205,000. Before that, it took the firms ten years, from 1992 to 2002, to improve that much. The relative gain in profits was even more impressive. Since 2003, PPP has jumped by $438,000, to an average of $1.3 million. It took the Am Law 100 firms 15 years, from 1987 to 2002, to make a similar gain.
This Law Firm Golden Age has been fueled by surging demand for high-end legal services and unrelenting annual rate hikes. Partners reaped the benefits of hard work-and of pulling up the ladder behind them. Stoking these gains has been a dramatic slowdown in the naming of new equity partners. Since 2001, the growth in equity partners has been above the 21-year annual average of 3.2 percent only once, in 2003. Last year the average equity partnership grew by 2.6 percent, or almost five partners.
Even in these bountiful times, five was a big number. Thirty-seven firms shrunk their equity partnerships. Four held them flat. And eight increased them by one or two. A handful of firms managed to lose partners and PPP. Notable in that category are Dickstein Shapiro; Heller Ehrman; and Akin Gump (which benefited from a contingency in 2006).
Other highlights from the Am Law 100 report:
The great run may be over. The sharp decrease in deal activity is well-known. And the classic countercyclical practices-litigation and bankruptcy-have not yet lifted all boats. Also, there is a structural indicator that points to weakness. For the first time since the bust of 2001, the growth in head count noticeably exceeded the growth in RPL (in 2002, the two metrics essentially tied.) Coupled to the body count was the much brooded-about associate salary increases last year. Many consultants argue that those costs will be fully felt this year, precisely when demand for high-priced legal help may fall.
Averages and year-to-year comparisons can often prove misleading. To add a little perspective, we ran a series of ten-year trend lines for the big firms. We found that some firms ended more or less where they started. But the story for 59 of the Am Law 100 firms in 1998 was more turbulent. Twelve died or disappeared into mergers. Twenty improved their RPL rank by double digits, while 15 dropped by double digits. Seven moved from the bottom half of the list to the top; five dropped from the top half to the bottom. And three firms that were not on the 1998 list-Quinn Emanuel, the litigation wunderkind; Finnegan, Henderson, the IP specialty shop; and Fish & Richardson, an IP and litigation house that scored a big contingency in 2007-placed in the top 30.
The biggest upward movers: Dechert (up 35 places), Akin Gump (up 34), and DLA Piper (up 31). The biggest losers: Chadbourne (down 44 spots), and Dewey Ballantine, King & Spalding, and White & Case (all down 20).
We hope you weren’t working so hard that you didn’t enjoy the best seasons of your careers.
The Stories
The Charts
THE AM LAW 100 2008: Behind the Numbers
Noteworthy trends and newsmaking firms in this year’s Am Law 100.
The American Lawyer
By Francesca Heintz
May 1, 2008
Am Law 100 firms all have high gross revenues, but when it comes to translating that money into payouts for equity partners, the similarities end. Average profits per partner among the firms vary widely, from a low of $410,000 at Littler Mendelson to a high of $4.945 million at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Likewise, there was plenty of disparity in firms’ rates of profit growth, ranging from
an increase of 42 percent at Cooley Godward Kronish to a decline of 17.6 percent at Howrey. (For The Am Law 100 as a whole, average profits per partner were $1.3 million, an 8.7 percent increase from 2006.)
Here are reasons for some of the biggest changes in profits per partner among Am Law 100 firms in 2007:
Windfalls
A contingency fee resulting from the $65 million settlement of a patent suit against ImClone Systems Incorporated contributed to a 30.4 percent increase in Fish & Richardson’s profits per partner. (Revenue per lawyer went up 14.6 percent, too.) Even without that boost, firm president Peter Devlin says, profits would have been up 15 percent.
The contingency sword cuts both ways: In 2006 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld posted a 34.2 percent increase in profits per partner, thanks in part to a $62 million contingency fee. In 2007 came the hangover: a decline of 6.9 percent, to $1.205 million. Firm chairman R. Bruce McLean says that when the 2006 award is stripped from the numbers, the result is a year-to-year increase of about 8 percent.
New Digs
When you trade up, you pay up. Relocation costs ate into Dickstein Shapiro’s bottom line: The firm moved into new offices in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles and it expanded its space in New York. Profits per partner declined 6.9 percent, to $1.005 million.
Howrey spent $20 million to open new offices in New York and Munich-money that managing partner and CEO Robert Ruyak says came straight from the profit pool, since the partnership decided not to fund the expansion through borrowing. In addition, the firm suffered in comparison to a strong 2006, when it collected bonuses on work done under alternative billing arrangements. The firm’s profits per partner slid 17.6 percent, to $1.005 million.
Nice Work
Debevoise & Plimpton’s transactions lawyers feasted on premium private equity work in the first half of 2007, while its litigators spent the year defending Siemens AG in a bet-the-company bribery case. The firm’s profits rose 26.9 percent, to $2.29 million; its revenue per lawyer increased 18.7 percent, to $1.2 million.
Working Overtime (Or Not)
Dorsey & Whitney’s profits rose 32.7 percent, to $670,000. Although the firm cut the size of its equity partnership by 4.5 percent and increased the size of its nonequity class by 17 percent, managing partner Marianne Short attributes the rise primarily to an increase in hours worked. “A lot of blood, sweat, and tears went into that number,” she says. Short says that the firm increased billing rates by an average of only 3 percent; she also acknowledges that the firm aggressively managed expenses. Revenue per lawyer went up 6 percent, to $620,000.
Meanwhile, at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, profits dropped 6 percent, to $2.725 million, while revenue per lawyer declined 9 percent, to $910,000. Gregory Markel, chairman of the firm’s litigation practice, says that after the mid-year credit crunch, work dried up in the firm’s structured and global finance practice. The firm has laid off associates and Robert Link left his post as chairman, although he continues as managing partner.
Two Firms Pass the $2 Billion Mark
|
Order the electronic spreadsheet of the 2008 Am Law 100 Two firms — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Latham & Watkins — posted gross revenues of more than $2 billion last year. Ten other firms had ten-digit grosses as well. Meanwhile, Am Law 100 mainstay Cahill Gordon & Reindel continued its drift toward the bottom of the chart. Despite a 7.5 percent increase in revenues, the firm ranked number 99, down seven places from its 2006 finish. Gross revenue figures on this chart are rounded to the nearest $500,000. Firms that tied in the rankings are listed alphabetically. Some firms -provided fractional full-time equivalent or full-year equivalent lawyer numbers, which were rounded up to the nearest whole number. Firms marked with an asterisk have more than one partnership tier or some partners who are predominantly on fixed-income status. |
||||
| 2007 Rank | 2006 Rank | Firm | 2007 Gross Revenue | Change From 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | Skadden | $2,170,000,000 | 17.3% |
| 2 | 2 | Latham & Watkins | $2,005,500,000 | 23.5% |
| 3 | 3 | Baker & McKenzie | $1,829,000,000 | 20.2% |
| 4 | 4 | Jones Day | $1,441,000,000 | 10.0% |
| 5 | 5 | Sidley Austin | $1,386,000,000 | 11.2% |
| 6 | 6 | White & Case | $1,373,000,000 | 15.9% |
| 7 | 7 | Kirkland & Ellis | $1,310,000,000 | 14.4% |
| 8 | 10 | Greenberg Traurig | $1,200,000,000 | 15.3% |
| 9 | 8 | Mayer Brown | $1,183,000,000 | 9.1% |
| 10 | 9 | Weil, Gotshal | $1,175,000,000 | 11.9% |
| 11 | 11 | DLA Piper US2 | $1,134,500,000 | 11.7% |
| 12 | 12 | Morgan, Lewis | $1,033,000,000 | 12.0% |
| 13 | 13 | Sullivan & Cromwell | $985,000,000 | 9.4% |
| 14 | 16 | McDermott Will | $978,000,000 | 13.7% |
| 15 | 18 | Paul, Hastings | $975,000,000 | 19.9% |
| 16 | 21 | Simpson Thacher | $966,000,000 | 20.6% |
| 17 | 14 | Wilmer | $944,000,000 | 5.2% |
| 18 | 15 | O’Melveny & Myers | $934,000,000 | 7.5% |
| 19 | 17 | Shearman & Sterling | $921,000,000 | 9.4% |
| 20 | 20 | Gibson, Dunn | $907,500,000 | 12.2% |
| 21 | 19 | Cleary Gottlieb | $894,000,000 | 10.0% |
| 21 | 22 | Morrison & Foerster | $894,000,000 | 15.5% |
| 23 | 30 | Reed Smith | $892,000,000 | 38.6% |
| 24 | 23 | Hogan & Hartson | $880,000,000 | 16.6% |
| 25 | 24 | Dechert | $836,500,000 | 14.7% |
| 26 | 29 | Davis Polk | $789,000,000 | 21.4% |
| 27 | 28 | Orrick | $772,000,000 | 15.9% |
| 28 | 50 | Kirkpatrick & Lockhart6 | $755,000,000 | N/A |
| 29 | 25 | Akin Gump1 | $752,500,000 | 3.6% |
| 30 | 26 | Bingham McCutchen | $743,500,000 | 8.4% |
| 31 | 31 | Ropes & Gray | $733,000,000 | 19.0% |
| 32 | 27 | Foley & Lardner | $720,500,000 | 7.9% |
| 33 | 38 | Debevoise & Plimpton | $709,500,000 | 23.4% |
| 34 | 33 | Winston & Strawn | $697,500,000 | 14.0% |
| 35 | 41 | Hunton & Williams | $653,500,000 | 19.6% |
| 36 | 35 | Paul, Weiss | $651,000,000 | 9.6% |
| 37 | 34 | Fulbright & Jaworski | $649,500,000 | 7.8% |
| 38 | 42 | Milbank, Tweed | $642,500,000 | 18.8% |
| 39 | 44 | Proskauer Rose | $628,000,000 | 22.1% |
| 40 | 36 | King & Spalding | $615,500,000 | 5.7% |
| 41 | 32 | Holland & Knight | $612,500,000 | -0.2% |
| 42 | 47 | Goodwin Procter | $611,000,000 | 20.8% |
| 43 | 40 | Cravath | $610,500,000 | 11.0% |
| 44 | 49 | Willkie Farr | $603,000,000 | 20.0% |
| 45 | 43 | Vinson & Elkins | $596,000,000 | 12.0% |
| 46 | 37 | Pillsbury Winthrop | $590,000,000 | 1.8% |
| 47 | 39 | Cadwalader | $587,000,000 | 5.6% |
| 48 | 52 | Wachtell | $578,500,000 | 22.1% |
| 49 | 48 | Baker Botts | $577,500,000 | 14.9% |
| 49 | 45 | LeBoeuf, Lamb3 | $577,500,000 | 12.5% |
| 51 | 53 | Fried, Frank | $537,500,000 | 14.2% |
| 52 | 56 | Wilson Sonsini | $531,000,000 | 12.7% |
| 53 | 54 | Squire, Sanders | $530,500,000 | 14.0% |
| 54 | 55 | Alston & Bird | $518,000,000 | 12.1% |
| 55 | 51 | Arnold & Porter | $508,000,000 | 6.9% |
| 56 | 46 | Heller Ehrman | $491,000,000 | -3.2% |
| 57 | 71 | Cooley Godward | $485,000,000 | 44.8% |
| 58 | 57 | Sonnenschein | $478,000,000 | 4.0% |
| 59 | 58 | Howrey | $475,000,000 | 3.9% |
| 60 | 61 | Bryan Cave | $469,000,000 | 14.1% |
| 61 | 63 | Covington & Burling | $467,000,000 | 14.5% |
| 62 | 59 | Kaye Scholer | $464,000,000 | 8.9% |
| 63 | 60 | Katten Muchin | $461,000,000 | 9.6% |
| 64 | 65 | Nixon Peabody | $456,500,000 | 16.3% |
| 65 | 66 | Seyfarth Shaw | $442,500,000 | 13.0% |
| 66 | 62 | Dewey Ballantine3 | $431,000,000 | 5.5% |
| 67 | 68 | Schulte Roth | $419,500,000 | 13.7% |
| 68 | 67 | McGuireWoods | $412,000,000 | 6.3% |
| 69 | 69 | Perkins Coie | $394,500,000 | 10.7% |
| 70 | 78 | Quinn Emanuel1 | $384,500,000 | 29.0% |
| 71 | 70 | Duane Morris | $375,000,000 | 11.4% |
| 72 | 80 | Fish & Richardson5 | $367,500,000 | 28.3% |
| 73 | 72 | Dorsey & Whitney | $367,000,000 | 11.4% |
| 74 | 99 | Drinker Biddle4 | $357,000,000 | N/A |
| 75 | 74 | Troutman Sanders | $349,000,000 | 13.5% |
| 76 | 102 | Thelen Reid8 | $345,000,000 | N/A |
| 77 | 79 | Steptoe & Johnson | $335,000,000 | 14.1% |
| 78 | 76 | Sheppard, Mullin | $333,000,000 | 10.6% |
| 79 | 73 | Jenner & Block | $332,500,000 | 3.9% |
| 80 | 87 | Venable | $321,500,000 | 19.7% |
| 81 | 75 | Edwards Angell | $320,500,000 | 5.1% |
| 82 | 82 | Shook, Hardy | $316,000,000 | 12.5% |
| 83 | 77 | Baker & Hostetler | $315,000,000 | 5.0% |
| 84 | 81 | Blank Rome | $314,500,000 | 10.7% |
| 85 | 96 | Patton Boggs | $310,000,000 | 21.3% |
| 86 | 85 | Finnegan, Henderson1 | $306,500,000 | 12.7% |
| 87 | 101 | Littler Mendelson | $305,000,000 | 27.1% |
| 88 | 95 | Pepper Hamilton | $297,000,000 | 14.7% |
| 88 | 84 | Stroock & Stroock | $297,000,000 | 8.0% |
| 90 | 91 | Kramer Levin | $296,500,000 | 13.2% |
| 91 | 82 | Dickstein Shapiro | $294,000,000 | 4.6% |
| 92 | 92 | Mintz, Levin | $291,000,000 | 11.7% |
| 93 | 94 | Sutherland Asbill | $289,000,000 | 11.4% |
| 94 | 98 | Faegre & Benson | $284,500,000 | 14.7% |
| 94 | 89 | Womble Carlyle | $284,500,000 | 7.2% |
| 96 | 86 | Buchanan Ingersoll | $282,000,000 | 3.9% |
| 97 | 97 | Chadbourne & Parke | $281,000,000 | 10.6% |
| 98 | 100 | Ballard Spahr | $280,500,000 | 15.4% |
| 99 | 92 | Cahill Gordon | $280,000,000 | 7.5% |
| 100 | 88 | Kilpatrick Stockton | $265,500,000 | -0.2% |
|
FOOTNOTES: (The American Lawyer, May 2008) |
||||
http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?&id=1208947716661
Wachtell Heads the Value Rankings (Again)
|
Order the electronic spreadsheet of the 2008 Am Law 100 Value per lawyer ranks firms by how efficiently they generate profits. For the fourth year in a row, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz tops our list, with a value per lawyer of $1.845 million. It takes only 5.42 lawyers there to make $10 million for the firm; at last-ranked Buchanan Ingersoll, it takes almost 59 lawyers to generate that sum. A firm’s value per lawyer is its compensation–all partners divided by its head count. The result indicates the average value of each lawyer. The second column calculates how many lawyers are needed to generate $10 million in revenues for a firm. For a complete set of definitions, see “A Guide to Our Methodology.” |
|||
| Rank | Firm | 2007 CAP Divided by Number of Lawyers | Lawyers Needed to Generate $10 Million |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wachtell | $1,845,000 | 5.42 |
| 2 | Sullivan & Cromwell | $830,000 | 12.05 |
| 3 | Cravath | $720,000 | 13.89 |
| 4 | Quinn Emanuel | $705,000 | 14.18 |
| 5 | Cahill Gordon | $650,000 | 15.38 |
| 5 | Simpson Thacher | $650,000 | 15.38 |
| 7 | Davis Polk | $630,000 | 15.87 |
| 8 | Milbank, Tweed | $615,000 | 16.26 |
| 9 | Gibson, Dunn | $605,000 | 16.53 |
| 10 | Kirkland & Ellis | $565,000 | 17.70 |
| 10 | Latham & Watkins | $565,000 | 17.70 |
| 12 | Debevoise & Plimpton | $530,000 | 18.87 |
| 13 | Willkie Farr | $520,000 | 19.23 |
| 14 | McDermott Will | $515,000 | 19.42 |
| 14 | Skadden | $515,000 | 19.42 |
| 16 | Dechert | $475,000 | 21.05 |
| 17 | Paul, Weiss | $470,000 | 21.28 |
| 17 | Weil, Gotshal | $470,000 | 21.28 |
| 19 | Goodwin Procter | $455,000 | 21.98 |
| 19 | Ropes & Gray | $455,000 | 21.98 |
| 21 | Schulte Roth | $450,000 | 22.22 |
| 21 | Vinson & Elkins | $450,000 | 22.22 |
| 23 | Cleary Gottlieb | $445,000 | 22.47 |
| 24 | Kaye Scholer | $420,000 | 23.81 |
| 25 | Hogan & Hartson | $415,000 | 24.10 |
| 26 | Fried, Frank | $410,000 | 24.39 |
| 26 | Kramer Levin | $410,000 | 24.39 |
| 26 | Paul, Hastings | $410,000 | 24.39 |
| 26 | Shearman & Sterling | $410,000 | 24.39 |
| 30 | Baker Botts | $405,000 | 24.69 |
| 31 | Covington & Burling | $395,000 | 25.32 |
| 31 | Winston & Strawn | $395,000 | 25.32 |
| 33 | Cooley Godward | $390,000 | 25.64 |
| 34 | Sidley Austin | $380,000 | 26.32 |
| 35 | Finnegan, Henderson | $375,000 | 26.67 |
| 35 | Katten Muchin | $375,000 | 26.67 |
| 35 | Proskauer Rose | $375,000 | 26.67 |
| 38 | Morgan, Lewis | $370,000 | 27.03 |
| 39 | Fish & Richardson | $365,000 | 27.40 |
| 39 | Orrick | $365,000 | 27.40 |
| 41 | Morrison & Foerster | $360,000 | 27.78 |
| 41 | Sheppard, Mullin | $360,000 | 27.78 |
| 43 | DLA Piper US2 | $355,000 | 28.17 |
| 44 | Cadwalader | $350,000 | 28.57 |
| 44 | Foley & Lardner | $350,000 | 28.57 |
| 44 | Greenberg Traurig | $350,000 | 28.57 |
| 44 | Wilmer | $350,000 | 28.57 |
| 48 | Akin Gump | $345,000 | 28.99 |
| 48 | Arnold & Porter | $345,000 | 28.99 |
| 48 | Mayer Brown | $345,000 | 28.99 |
| 48 | O’Melveny & Myers | $345,000 | 28.99 |
| 48 | Stroock & Stroock | $345,000 | 28.99 |
| 53 | Jenner & Block | $340,000 | 29.41 |
| 53 | Pillsbury Winthrop | $340,000 | 29.41 |
| 53 | Steptoe & Johnson | $340,000 | 29.41 |
| 56 | LeBoeuf, Lamb | $335,000 | 29.85 |
| 57 | Mintz, Levin | $325,000 | 30.77 |
| 58 | Bingham McCutchen | $320,000 | 31.25 |
| 59 | Dewey Ballantine | $315,000 | 31.75 |
| 60 | Fulbright & Jaworski | $310,000 | 32.26 |
| 60 | King & Spalding | $310,000 | 32.26 |
| 60 | Wilson Sonsini | $310,000 | 32.26 |
| 63 | Heller Ehrman | $305,000 | 32.79 |
| 64 | Alston & Bird | $300,000 | 33.33 |
| 64 | Hunton & Williams | $300,000 | 33.33 |
| 66 | Dickstein Shapiro | $295,000 | 33.90 |
| 66 | Howrey | $295,000 | 33.90 |
| 66 | Reed Smith | $295,000 | 33.90 |
| 66 | Venable | $295,000 | 33.90 |
| 70 | Duane Morris | $290,000 | 34.48 |
| 70 | Sonnenschein | $290,000 | 34.48 |
| 72 | Chadbourne & Parke | $285,000 | 35.09 |
| 72 | Sutherland Asbill | $285,000 | 35.09 |
| 72 | White & Case | $285,000 | 35.09 |
| 75 | Nixon Peabody | $280,000 | 35.71 |
| 76 | Blank Rome | $275,000 | 36.36 |
| 76 | Perkins Coie | $275,000 | 36.36 |
| 78 | Patton Boggs | $265,000 | 37.74 |
| 79 | Dorsey & Whitney | $260,000 | 38.46 |
| 79 | Faegre & Benson | $260,000 | 38.46 |
| 79 | Kirkpatrick & Lockhart | $260,000 | 38.46 |
| 79 | Seyfarth Shaw | $260,000 | 38.46 |
| 79 | Womble Carlyle | $260,000 | 38.46 |
| 84 | McGuireWoods | $255,000 | 39.22 |
| 85 | Holland & Knight | $245,000 | 40.82 |
| 85 | Shook, Hardy | $245,000 | 40.82 |
| 87 | Kilpatrick Stockton | $240,000 | 41.67 |
| 87 | Pepper Hamilton | $240,000 | 41.67 |
| 87 | Troutman Sanders | $240,000 | 41.67 |
| 90 | Edwards Angell | $235,000 | 42.55 |
| 91 | Jones Day | $230,000 | 43.48 |
| 91 | Thelen Reid | $230,000 | 43.48 |
| 93 | Baker & Hostetler | $225,000 | 44.44 |
| 93 | Ballard Spahr | $225,000 | 44.44 |
| 95 | Baker & McKenzie | $220,000 | 45.45 |
| 95 | Drinker Biddle | $220,000 | 45.45 |
| 95 | Squire, Sanders | $220,000 | 45.45 |
| 98 | Bryan Cave | $215,000 | 46.51 |
| 99 | Littler Mendelson | $175,000 | 57.14 |
| 100 | Buchanan Ingersoll | $170,000 | 58.82 |
|
FOOTNOTES: (The American Lawyer, May 2008) |
|||