UIDE
TO LEADING LAW FIRMS
 THE AM LAW 100/200
 THE GLOBAL 100
 THE A-LIST
 CORPORATE SCORECARD
UIDE
ZEUGHAUSER GROUP’S 2011 POCKET GUIDE
TO THE AMERICAN LAWYER RANKINGS
UIDE
Zeughauser Group
Dear Clients and Other Friends:
We are delighted to provide you with our ZGuide to the
2011 Am Law 200 and 2010 Global 100—our ninth edition
of the ZGuide.
In 2010 the legal industry rebounded nicely from the
economic downturn that began in the second half of 2007
and continued through 2009. As the year closed, we saw
hiring and growth resume and profitability improve across
the industry. But the relentless pressure of unforgiving
global economic trends demanded still better talent and
client management by all firms. We were delighted that
many of the world’s leading firms looked to us for advice on
innovations and best practices for successfully addressing
the increasing challenges of market leadership.
We continue to believe that the traditional law firm model—
the promise of a rewarding career, including training,
challenging work, and partnership for those lawyers
who demonstrate the traits of ownership and find career
satisfaction in helping clients achieve their goals—provides
the clearest path to success. But, as we note in the article
contained in this edition of the ZGuide, we believe the everincreasing sophistication of clients and unyielding pressure
on firms to maintain high levels of profitability suggest they
adopt changing metrics for measuring lawyer performance.
Firms that possess the ability and discipline to change will
lead; those that don’t will lag.
• ZGuide •
We want to take this opportunity to thank our clients and
the over fifty Am Law 200 firms that participate in our Chair,
COO, and CMO Roundtables for their interest in our work.
We look forward to working with them and new clients
to identify and capture opportunities for growth in the
increasingly global marketplace for legal services.
We wish all of our friends in the industry renewed drive,
clear vision, and great vitality throughout 2011.
Sincerely,
Ron Beard Mozhgan Mizban
Norm Rubenstein
Jack Walker
Mary K Young
Peter Zeughauser
Kent Zimmermann
Lonnie Zwerin
© ALM Media Properties, LLC and Zeughauser Group, LLC
Chart information reprinted with permission from the April, May, June 2011 and October 2010 issues of The
American Lawyer (The Am Law 100, The Am Law 200, Corporate Scorecard, The A-List, and The Global 100).
© 2010 and 2011 ALM Media 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 Times They Are A-Changin’
So Must the Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Methodology
The Global 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
The Global 100
Ranked by Profits Per Equity Partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Methodology
The Corporate Scorecard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
The Corporate Scorecard
Mergers and Acquisitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Private Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
IPOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Equities by U.S. Corporations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Investment-Grade Debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
High-Yield Debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Asset-Backed Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Mortgage-Backed Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Municipal Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Project Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
REIT Equities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
REIT Debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Bankruptcies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Emergences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Law Firm Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
ZGuide • 1
The Am Law 200
Methodology
The Am Law 200 is reported by staff members at
ALM'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), The National Law Journal/LegalTimes,
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. The revenue and profit figures listed are
for the firm’s most recently completed fiscal year, except where
otherwise noted. Most Am Law firms are on a calendar fiscal
year.
Equity Partners are those who 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 fixedincome basis. 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 figures for the 2010
calendar year taken from The National Law Journal ’s most recent
NLJ 250 survey.
2 • ZGuide
Calculations
• Gross Revenue is rounded to the nearest $500,000.
• Profits Per Equity Partner, Revenue Per Lawyer, and
Average Compensation—All Partners are rounded to the
nearest $5,000.
• Revenue Per Lawyer (RPL) is calculated by dividing gross
revenue by the number of lawyers.
• Profits Per Equity Partner (PPEP) is calculated by dividing
net operating income by the number of Equity Partners.
• Compensation Average—All Partners is the net operating income plus compensation to Nonequity Partners,
divided by the number of Equity and Nonequity Partners.
• Value Per Lawyer (VPL) is calculated by dividing the Compensation Average—All Partners by the total number of lawyers.
That figure is then divided by $10 million to determine how
many lawyers it takes to generate that amount.
Location of Firms
Firms are identified as "international" or "national" according
to the distribution of their lawyers. Vereins are broken out
separately because their structure, particularly regarding profit
sharing, differs significantly from that of other Am Law 200 firms.
These 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., we identify the firm as
international. If no more than 45 percent of the firm's attorneys
were located in any one region of the country, we identify the
firm as national.
The A-List
The A-List, comprised of just 20 firms, is determined by
rankings in The Minority Law Journal’ s Diversity Scorecard,
and in three surveys conducted by The American Lawyer
(the Revenue Per Lawyer, Pro Bono, and Midlevel Associate
surveys). Rankings in each survey are converted into
points, using an inversion calculation in which a firm
ranked Number One receives 200 points. 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,
including the full methodology of how the A-List is
calculated, is available on americanlawyer.com and
in the July 2011 issue of The American Lawyer.
u
ZGuide • 3
The Am Law 200
PPEP Rank 2011
PPEP Rank 2010
The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
7
5
5
6
8
7
6
8
9
9
10
10
12
11
4
12
14
13
11
14
15
15
21
16
13
17
17
18
19
19
24
20
16
4 • ZGuide
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
253 Lawyers, 84 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
457 Lawyers, 94 Equity Partners, 37 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Sullivan & Cromwell
749 Lawyers, 166 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Cahill Gordon & Reindel
273 Lawyers, 61 Equity Partners, 6 Nonequity Partners, New York
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
495 Lawyers, 87 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Kirkland & Ellis
1,379 Lawyers, 280 Equity Partners, 337 Nonequity Partners, National
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison I
709 Lawyers, 121 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Irell & Manella
184 Lawyers, 59 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett I
810 Lawyers, 177 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton I
1,127 Lawyers, 191 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, International
Boies, Schiller & Flexner
241 Lawyers, 41 Equity Partners, 55 Nonequity Partners, National
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy I
574 Lawyers, 119 Equity Partners, 28 Nonequity Partners, New York
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
481 Lawyers, 58 Equity Partners, 40 Nonequity Partners, New York
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom I
1,859 Lawyers, 430 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, National
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher I
1,029 Lawyers, 277 Equity Partners, 33 Nonequity Partners, National
Weil, Gotshal & Manges I
1,152 Lawyers, 194 Equity Partners, 105 Nonequity Partners, New York
Davis Polk & Wardwell I
742 Lawyers, 163 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Willkie Farr & Gallagher
624 Lawyers, 130 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Debevoise & Plimpton I
674 Lawyers, 143 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Schulte Roth & Zabel
406 Lawyers, 88 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Am Law 200 Rank
Revenue Per
Lawyer
RPL Rank
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
Average,
All Partners
46
$2,290,000
1
$4,345,000
$550,500,000
51
$1,205,000
5
$2,845,000
$3,250,000
$1,079,000,000
14
$1,440,000
2
$3,250,000
$3,230,000
$323,500,000
82
$1,185,000
7
$3,040,000
$3,170,000
$591,000,000
44
$1,195,000
6
$3,170,000
$3,075,000
$1,625,000,000
6
$1,180,000
9
$1,645,000
$3,050,000
$751,000,000
30
$1,060,000
16
$3,050,000
$2,935,000
$256,000,000
113
$1,390,000
3
$2,935,000
$2,640,000
$923,500,000
21
$1,140,000
11
$2,640,000
$2,605,000
$1,050,000,000
17
$930,000
32
$2,605,000
$2,560,000
$305,000,000
89
$1,265,000
4
$1,565,000
$2,490,000
$622,000,000
41
$1,085,000
13
$2,300,000
$2,390,000
$429,500,000
66
$895,000
39
$1,705,000
$2,320,000
$2,100,000,000
2
$1,130,000
12
$2,320,000
$2,305,000
$1,063,000,000
15
$1,035,000
18
$2,105,000
$2,260,000
$1,185,000,000
11
$1,030,000
19
$1,830,000
$2,210,000
$870,000,000
25
$1,175,000
10
$2,210,000
$2,090,000
$533,500,000
53
$855,000
48
$2,090,000
$2,060,000
$657,000,000
36
$975,000
26
$2,060,000
$2,055,000
$373,000,000
74
$920,000
34
$2,055,000
Profits Per
Equity Partner
Gross Revenue
$4,345,000
$580,000,000
$3,620,000
ZGuide • 5
The Am Law 200
PPEP Rank 2011
PPEP Rank 2010
The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
21
20
22
22
23
23
24
18
25
26
26
36
27
27
28
36
29
33
29
54
31
43
32
45
33
30
33
33
35
25
36
33
37
28
38
30
39
36
40
39
6 • ZGuide
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Dechert
756 Lawyers, 146 Equity Partners, 103 Nonequity Partners, National
Latham & Watkins I
1,931 Lawyers, 451 Equity Partners, 145 Nonequity Partners, National
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker I
910 Lawyers, 195 Equity Partners, 56 Nonequity Partners, National
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman
338 Lawyers, 52 Equity Partners, 45 Nonequity Partners, New York
Dewey & LeBoeuf I
1,045 Lawyers, 185 Equity Partners, 115 Nonequity Partners, New York
King & Spalding
793 Lawyers, 153 Equity Partners, 143 Nonequity Partners, National
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
326 Lawyers, 70 Equity Partners, 31 Nonequity Partners, New York
Bingham McCutchen
901 Lawyers, 164 Equity Partners, 166 Nonequity Partners, National
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
784 Lawyers, 170 Equity Partners, 122 Nonequity Partners, National
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler I
178 Lawyers, 50 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Fish & Richardson
356 Lawyers, 96 Equity Partners, 64 Nonequity Partners, National
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
485 Lawyers, 136 Equity Partners, 5 Nonequity Partners, New York
Hughes Hubbard & Reed I
300 Lawyers, 61 Equity Partners, 30 Nonequity Partners, New York
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell
138 Lawyers, 41 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Shearman & Sterling I
796 Lawyers, 184 Equity Partners, 27 Nonequity Partners, International
Proskauer Rose
663 Lawyers, 160 Equity Partners, 53 Nonequity Partners, New York
White & Case
1,814 Lawyers, 269 Equity Partners, 128 Nonequity Partners, International
O'Melveny & Myers
884 Lawyers, 211 Equity Partners, 23 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
588 Lawyers, 114 Equity Partners, 61 Nonequity Partners, Palo Alto
Kaye Scholer
425 Lawyers, 127 Equity Partners, 18 Nonequity Partners, New York
Profits Per
Equity Partner
Gross Revenue
Am Law 200 Rank
Revenue Per
Lawyer
RPL Rank
Compensation
Average,
All Partners
$2,010,000
$648,500,000
37
$860,000
47
$1,405,000
$1,995,000
$1,929,000,000
4
$1,000,000
21
$1,695,000
$1,990,000
$902,000,000
23
$990,000
23
$1,735,000
$1,855,000
$245,500,000
118
$725,000
82
$1,220,000
$1,770,000
$910,000,000
22
$870,000
44
$1,340,000
$1,730,000
$718,000,000
33
$905,000
37
$1,120,000
$1,695,000
$309,500,000
87
$950,000
30
$1,490,000
$1,625,000
$873,000,000
24
$970,000
28
$1,095,000
$1,605,000
$736,500,000
32
$940,000
31
$1,185,000
$1,605,000
$174,000,000
146
$980,000
25
$1,605,000
$1,600,000
$383,500,000
70
$1,075,000
15
$1,125,000
$1,590,000
$471,500,000
60
$970,000
28
$1,555,000
$1,585,000
$298,500,000
91
$995,000
22
$1,300,000
$1,585,000
$108,000,000
185
$785,000
69
$1,585,000
$1,565,000
$737,000,000
31
$925,000
33
$1,455,000
$1,560,000
$645,000,000
38
$975,000
26
$1,320,000
$1,555,000
$1,278,000,000
9
$705,000
91
$1,245,000
$1,525,000
$782,500,000
29
$920,000
34
$1,430,000
$1,500,000
$493,000,000
58
$840,000
57
$1,210,000
$1,490,000
$435,000,000
65
$1,025,000
20
$1,410,000
ZGuide • 7
The Am Law 200
PPEP Rank 2011
PPEP Rank 2010
The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
41
40
42
32
43
45
43
42
45
48
45
29
47
63
48
52
49
65
50
47
51
41
52
49
53
61
54
56
55
44
56
73
57
81
57
62
59
59
60
64
8 • ZGuide
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Ropes & Gray I
928 Lawyers, 262 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Sidley Austin
1,538 Lawyers, 297 Equity Partners, 319 Nonequity Partners, National
McDermott Will & Emery
970 Lawyers, 185 Equity Partners, 366 Nonequity Partners, National
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
1,022 Lawyers, 201 Equity Partners, 186 Nonequity Partners, National
Goodwin Procter
741 Lawyers, 212 Equity Partners, 103 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Loeb & Loeb
294 Lawyers, 51 Equity Partners, 107 Nonequity Partners, New York
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
244 Lawyers, 27 Equity Partners, 38 Nonequity Partners, New York
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
1,239 Lawyers, 245 Equity Partners, 209 Nonequity Partners, National
Jenner & Block
438 Lawyers, 117 Equity Partners, 72 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Winston & Strawn
868 Lawyers, 182 Equity Partners, 198 Nonequity Partners, National
Baker Botts
703 Lawyers, 179 Equity Partners, 86 Nonequity Partners, Houston
Vinson & Elkins
714 Lawyers, 200 Equity Partners, 73 Nonequity Partners, Houston
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr I
890 Lawyers, 297 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, National
Chadbourne & Parke
398 Lawyers, 81 Equity Partners, 46 Nonequity Partners, New York
Greenberg Traurig
1,721 Lawyers, 317 Equity Partners, 594 Nonequity Partners, National
Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen and Loewy
283 Lawyers, 53 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, National
Brown Rudnick
184 Lawyers, 51 Equity Partners, 41 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Choate Hall & Stewart
142 Lawyers, 49 Equity Partners, 28 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Cooley
604 Lawyers, 156 Equity Partners, 72 Nonequity Partners, Palo Alto
Morrison & Foerster I
1,029 Lawyers, 270 Equity Partners, 76 Nonequity Partners, San Francisco
Am Law 200 Rank
Revenue Per
Lawyer
RPL Rank
Compensation
Average,
All Partners
27
$885,000
42
$1,475,000
$1,341,000,000
8
$870,000
44
$1,020,000
$1,460,000
$788,500,000
28
$815,000
62
$795,000
$1,460,000
$848,500,000
26
$830,000
60
$960,000
$1,450,000
$678,500,000
35
$915,000
36
$1,135,000
$1,450,000
$247,500,000
117
$840,000
57
$780,000
$1,405,000
$140,000,000
168
$575,000
143
$835,000
$1,400,000
$1,084,500,000
13
$875,000
43
$1,020,000
$1,390,000
$379,000,000
72
$865,000
46
$1,040,000
$1,385,000
$717,000,000
34
$825,000
61
$925,000
$1,370,000
$555,000,000
48
$790,000
65
$1,100,000
$1,345,000
$602,500,000
42
$845,000
53
$1,170,000
$1,330,000
$962,000,000
18
$1,080,000
14
$1,330,000
$1,325,000
$306,500,000
88
$770,000
71
$995,000
$1,320,000
$1,236,000,000
10
$720,000
86
$715,000
$1,315,000
$239,500,000
120
$845,000
53
$1,315,000
$1,305,000
$165,500,000
151
$895,000
39
$900,000
$1,305,000
$140,000,000
168
$985,000
24
$990,000
$1,295,000
$517,000,000
57
$855,000
48
$1,065,000
$1,290,000
$930,500,000
20
37
$1,120,000
Profits Per
Equity Partner
Gross Revenue
$1,475,000
$822,500,000
$1,465,000
$905,000
ZGuide • 9
The Am Law 200
PPEP Rank 2011
PPEP Rank 2010
The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
61
74
62
50
62
51
64
58
65
88
66
67
67
67
68
55
69
53
70
83
71
79
72
76
72
66
72
70
75
78
76
71
77
77
78
84
79
59
79
74
10 • ZGuide
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Lowenstein Sandler
249 Lawyers, 64 Equity Partners, 39 Nonequity Partners, Roseland, NJ
Munger, Tolles & Olson I
181 Lawyers, 93 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
465 Lawyers, 82 Equity Partners, 137 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Williams & Connolly
255 Lawyers, 107 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Alston & Bird
794 Lawyers, 141 Equity Partners, 207 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Katten Muchin Rosenman
597 Lawyers, 141 Equity Partners, 180 Nonequity Partners, National
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
322 Lawyers, 55 Equity Partners, 130 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Covington & Burling I
698 Lawyers, 224 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
DLA Piper 1
3,348 Lawyers, 416 Equity Partners, 802 Nonequity Partners, Verein
Andrews Kurth
355 Lawyers, 91 Equity Partners, 85 Nonequity Partners, Houston
Baker & McKenzie 2
3,738 Lawyers, 717 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Verein
Arnold & Porter
650 Lawyers, 214 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Hogan Lovells 3
2,363 Lawyers, 512 Equity Partners, 297 Nonequity Partners, Verein
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
292 Lawyers, 108 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
Fenwick & West
241 Lawyers, 77 Equity Partners, 9 Nonequity Partners, Mountain View, CA
Mayer Brown
1,645 Lawyers, 269 Equity Partners, 338 Nonequity Partners, International
Reed Smith
1,449 Lawyers, 316 Equity Partners, 374 Nonequity Partners, National
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
621 Lawyers, 172 Equity Partners, 134 Nonequity Partners, National
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner
377 Lawyers, 106 Equity Partners, 41 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Shook, Hardy & Bacon
493 Lawyers, 112 Equity Partners, 85 Nonequity Partners, Kansas City, MO
V ereins differ structurally from other Am Law 100 firms, especially in regard to profit sharing. Because we are publishing global statistics for DLA Piper for
the first time, there is no year-over-year comparison for the firm.
Vereins differ structurally from other Am Law 100 firms, especially in regard to profit sharing.
3
Vereins differ structurally from other Am Law 100 firms, especially in regard to profit sharing. Hogan & Hartson joined with Lovells in May 2010 to form the
Hogan Lovells verein, so there is no year-over-year comparison.
1
Am Law 200 Rank
Revenue Per
Lawyer
RPL Rank
2
Compensation
Average,
All Partners
136
$790,000
65
$950,000
$189,500,000
140
$1,045,000
17
$1,220,000
$1,220,000
$368,000,000
75
$790,000
65
$795,000
$1,215,000
$302,500,000
90
$1,185,000
7
$1,215,000
$1,210,000
$571,000,000
47
$720,000
86
$740,000
$1,185,000
$443,000,000
63
$740,000
77
$725,000
$1,160,000
$258,000,000
111
$800,000
63
$600,000
$1,155,000
$581,500,000
45
$835,000
59
$1,155,000
$1,135,000
$1,961,000,000
3
$585,000
139
$640,000
$1,130,000
$268,000,000
104
$755,000
76
$815,000
$1,125,000
$2,104,000,000
1
$565,000
147
$1,125,000
$1,120,000
$555,000,000
48
$855,000
48
$1,120,000
$1,120,000
$1,664,500,000
5
$705,000
91
$865,000
$1,120,000
$260,000,000
109
$890,000
41
$1,120,000
$1,085,000
$206,500,000
131
$855,000
48
$1,020,000
$1,070,000
$1,107,000,000
12
$675,000
105
$685,000
$1,050,000
$958,000,000
19
$660,000
110
$675,000
$1,045,000
$532,000,000
54
$855,000
48
$800,000
$1,035,000
$318,500,000
84
$845,000
53
$880,000
$1,035,000
$337,000,000
80
Profits Per
Equity Partner
Gross Revenue
$1,260,000
$197,000,000
$1,220,000
$685,000
99
$740,000
ZGuide • 11
The Am Law 200
PPEP Rank 2011
PPEP Rank 2010
The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
81
84
82
82
83
88
84
72
84
90
86
80
87
121
88
93
89
86
89
95
91
108
92
87
93
93
94
101
95
91
96
92
97
67
97
98
97
108
100
98
12 • ZGuide
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Bracewell & Giuliani
440 Lawyers, 91 Equity Partners, 97 Nonequity Partners, Houston
Wiley Rein
270 Lawyers, 66 Equity Partners, 61 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan
381 Lawyers, 103 Equity Partners, 67 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Dickstein Shapiro
335 Lawyers, 64 Equity Partners, 84 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Stevens & Lee
167 Lawyers, 62 Equity Partners, 54 Nonequity Partners, Reading, PA
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell
545 Lawyers, 142 Equity Partners, 163 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Chapman and Cutler
205 Lawyers, 83 Equity Partners, 21 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo 4
400 Lawyers, 83 Equity Partners, 119 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Kelley Drye & Warren
321 Lawyers, 57 Equity Partners, 62 Nonequity Partners, New York
Thompson & Knight
319 Lawyers, 90 Equity Partners, 59 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Foley Hoag
211 Lawyers, 50 Equity Partners, 43 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Herrick, Feinstein
160 Lawyers, 34 Equity Partners, 30 Nonequity Partners, New York
K&L Gates
1,763 Lawyers, 294 Equity Partners, 613 Nonequity Partners, National
McKenna Long & Aldridge
425 Lawyers, 89 Equity Partners, 102 Nonequity Partners, National
Kenyon & Kenyon
163 Lawyers, 43 Equity Partners, 12 Nonequity Partners, New York
Steptoe & Johnson
408 Lawyers, 145 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Crowell & Moring
441 Lawyers, 101 Equity Partners, 81 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Foley & Lardner
895 Lawyers, 168 Equity Partners, 297 Nonequity Partners, Milwaukee
Perkins Coie
693 Lawyers, 144 Equity Partners, 191 Nonequity Partners, Seattle
Patton Boggs
512 Lawyers, 106 Equity Partners, 122 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Revenue Per
Lawyer
RPL Rank
Fiscal year ends on March 31. Results are projected in order to meet The Am Law 100's publication deadline.
Am Law 200 Rank
4
Compensation
Average,
All Partners
97
$640,000
119
$695,000
$208,000,000
129
$770,000
71
$950,000
$1,010,000
$291,000,000
96
$765,000
73
$795,000
$1,005,000
$265,000,000
107
$790,000
65
$730,000
$1,005,000
$114,000,000
181
$685,000
99
$695,000
$980,000
$396,500,000
68
$725,000
82
$660,000
$975,000
$149,500,000
162
$730,000
80
$835,000
$970,000
$292,500,000
95
$730,000
80
$655,000
$950,000
$203,500,000
132
$635,000
120
$640,000
$950,000
$199,000,000
134
$625,000
122
$715,000
$945,000
$145,000,000
164
$685,000
99
$695,000
$935,000
$113,500,000
182
$710,000
90
$710,000
$930,000
$1,055,500,000
16
$600,000
129
$545,000
$925,000
$276,500,000
100
$650,000
115
$615,000
$920,000
$126,500,000
175
$775,000
70
$805,000
$910,000
$345,000,000
77
$845,000
53
$910,000
$900,000
$327,500,000
81
$740,000
77
$665,000
$900,000
$633,000,000
39
$705,000
91
$595,000
$900,000
$477,000,000
59
$690,000
96
$615,000
$885,000
$337,500,000
78
$660,000
110
$660,000
Profits Per
Equity Partner
Gross Revenue
$1,020,000
$280,500,000
$1,015,000
ZGuide • 13
The Am Law 200
PPEP Rank 2011
PPEP Rank 2010
The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
101
104
102
104
103
57
104
96
104
101
106
101
107
106
107
120
109
119
110
116
111
117
112
98
112
108
114
108
114
121
114
131
114
127
118
114
119
114
120
147
14 • ZGuide
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Fulbright & Jaworski
843 Lawyers, 316 Equity Partners, 29 Nonequity Partners, Houston
Moore & Van Allen
281 Lawyers, 85 Equity Partners, 66 Nonequity Partners, Charlotte
Gardere Wynne Sewell
240 Lawyers, 74 Equity Partners, 71 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
244 Lawyers, 83 Equity Partners, 10 Nonequity Partners, Minneapolis
Sills Cummis & Gross
161 Lawyers, 38 Equity Partners, 24 Nonequity Partners, Newark
Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
168 Lawyers, 55 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, New York
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter
272 Lawyers, 36 Equity Partners, 71 Nonequity Partners, Morristown, NJ
Schiff Hardin
310 Lawyers, 103 Equity Partners, 80 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Duane Morris
629 Lawyers, 136 Equity Partners, 217 Nonequity Partners, National
SNR Denton 5
600 Lawyers, 140 Equity Partners, 187 Nonequity Partners, Verein
Jones Day
2,502 Lawyers, 828 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, National
Hunton & Williams 6
855 Lawyers, 254 Equity Partners, 106 Nonequity Partners, National
McGuireWoods
886 Lawyers, 183 Equity Partners, 230 Nonequity Partners, Richmond
Arent Fox
323 Lawyers, 105 Equity Partners, 60 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Dow Lohnes
142 Lawyers, 40 Equity Partners, 15 Nonequity Partners, Washington, DC
Holland & Knight
910 Lawyers, 183 Equity Partners, 330 Nonequity Partners, National
Snell & Wilmer
410 Lawyers, 77 Equity Partners, 119 Nonequity Partners, Phoenix
Venable
496 Lawyers, 157 Equity Partners, 100 Nonequity Partners, National
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker
754 Lawyers, 145 Equity Partners, 163 Nonequity Partners, National
Baker & Hostetler
645 Lawyers, 140 Equity Partners, 182 Nonequity Partners, National
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal joined with Denton Wilde Sapte in September 2010 to form the SNR Denton verein. Results are
for the legacy U.S. operation only.
Fiscal year ends on March 31. Results are projected in order to meet The Am Law 100's publication deadline.
Gross Revenue
Revenue Per
Lawyer
RPL Rank
6
Am Law 200 Rank
5
Compensation
Average,
All Partners
$875,000
$625,500,000
40
$740,000
77
$850,000
$870,000
$164,500,000
152
$585,000
139
$610,000
$855,000
$157,500,000
158
$655,000
113
$610,000
$850,000
$168,000,000
149
$690,000
96
$810,000
$850,000
$103,000,000
193
$675,000
105
$695,000
$845,000
$127,500,000
173
$760,000
74
$845,000
$840,000
$110,000,000
184
$405,000
198
$455,000
$840,000
$224,000,000
124
$725,000
82
$655,000
$830,000
$411,000,000
67
$655,000
113
$540,000
$825,000
$454,500,000
61
$760,000
74
$545,000
$820,000
$1,616,000,000
7
$645,000
116
$820,000
$815,000
$600,000,000
43
$700,000
95
$710,000
$815,000
$532,000,000
54
$600,000
129
$545,000
$800,000
$223,500,000
125
$690,000
96
$630,000
$800,000
$95,500,000
197
$675,000
105
$710,000
$800,000
$551,500,000
50
$605,000
127
$525,000
$800,000
$243,000,000
119
$595,000
134
$640,000
$785,000
$337,500,000
78
$680,000
104
$605,000
$775,000
$274,000,000
101
$365,000
199
$525,000
$765,000
$386,000,000
69
$600,000
129
$550,000
Profits Per
Equity Partner
ZGuide • 15
The Am Law 200
PPEP Rank 2011
PPEP Rank 2010
The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
120
126
120
113
123
128
124
121
124
124
126
108
127
140
127
133
129
130
130
144
131
106
132
143
132
135
134
142
135
124
136
136
136
137
138
140
138
128
138
131
16 • ZGuide
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
218 Lawyers, 70 Equity Partners, 53 Nonequity Partners, Denver
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 7
785 Lawyers, 149 Equity Partners, 145 Nonequity Partners, National
Gibbons
199 Lawyers, 38 Equity Partners, 62 Nonequity Partners, Newark
Carlton Fields
270 Lawyers, 64 Equity Partners, 99 Nonequity Partners, Tampa
Vedder Price
246 Lawyers, 121 Equity Partners, 29 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Haynes and Boone
492 Lawyers, 138 Equity Partners, 83 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge
507 Lawyers, 76 Equity Partners, 127 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Seyfarth Shaw
702 Lawyers, 213 Equity Partners, 145 Nonequity Partners, National
Pepper Hamilton
459 Lawyers, 152 Equity Partners, 55 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Kilpatrick Stockton 8
424 Lawyers, 116 Equity Partners, 97 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Townsend and Townsend and Crew 8
175 Lawyers, 52 Equity Partners, 21 Nonequity Partners, San Francisco
Bryan Cave
908 Lawyers, 203 Equity Partners, 159 Nonequity Partners, National
Troutman Sanders
615 Lawyers, 174 Equity Partners, 138 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn
222 Lawyers, 117 Equity Partners, 48 Nonequity Partners, Detroit
Gordon & Rees
360 Lawyers, 29 Equity Partners, 137 Nonequity Partners, San Francisco
Blank Rome
481 Lawyers, 149 Equity Partners, 111 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Jackson Walker
317 Lawyers, 96 Equity Partners, 110 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
Barnes & Thornburg
450 Lawyers, 193 Equity Partners, 99 Nonequity Partners, Indianapolis
Sullivan & Worcester
155 Lawyers, 40 Equity Partners, 45 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Winstead
265 Lawyers, 106 Equity Partners, 50 Nonequity Partners, Dallas
.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey joined with Hammonds to form a verein effective January 2011
Townsend and Townsend and Crew merged with Kilpatrick Stockton to form Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton effective January
2011. Results are for the legacy operations only.
7
Gross Revenue
Am Law 200 Rank
Revenue Per
Lawyer
RPL Rank
8
Compensation
Average,
All Partners
$765,000
$137,000,000
171
$630,000
121
$580,000
$765,000
$518,000,000
56
$660,000
110
$595,000
$755,000
$106,500,000
187
$535,000
160
$475,000
$745,000
$154,000,000
159
$570,000
145
$495,000
$745,000
$176,000,000
144
$715,000
88
$665,000
$740,000
$296,000,000
93
$600,000
129
$615,000
$735,000
$298,000,000
92
$590,000
136
$480,000
$735,000
$452,500,000
62
$645,000
116
$550,000
$730,000
$313,500,000
85
$685,000
99
$630,000
$725,000
$250,000,000
114
$590,000
136
$560,000
$710,000
$138,500,000
170
$795,000
64
$600,000
$705,000
$539,500,000
52
$595,000
134
$545,000
$705,000
$363,500,000
76
$590,000
136
$485,000
$700,000
$158,000,000
157
$715,000
88
$565,000
$695,000
$162,500,000
155
$450,000
188
$305,000
$690,000
$311,000,000
86
$645,000
116
$535,000
$690,000
$179,000,000
143
$565,000
147
$465,000
$685,000
$260,000,000
109
$580,000
142
$550,000
$685,000
$94,500,000
198
$605,000
127
$495,000
$685,000
$144,000,000
165
$545,000
155
$530,000
Profits Per
Equity Partner
ZGuide • 17
The Am Law 200
PPEP Rank 2011
PPEP Rank 2010
The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
141
163
142
137
143
149
144
149
144
146
144
134
147
160
148
153
149
169
150
149
150
160
152
139
153
144
153
155
153
154
156
147
156
152
158
165
159
178
159
97
18 • ZGuide
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps
143 Lawyers, 59 Equity Partners, 32 Nonequity Partners, San Diego
Nixon Peabody
650 Lawyers, 190 Equity Partners, 145 Nonequity Partners, National
McCarter & English
381 Lawyers, 95 Equity Partners, 104 Nonequity Partners, Newark
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
406 Lawyers, 102 Equity Partners, 87 Nonequity Partners, Pittsburgh
Drinker Biddle & Reath
602 Lawyers, 185 Equity Partners, 71 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Sedgwick
345 Lawyers, 63 Equity Partners, 59 Nonequity Partners, San Francisco
Ice Miller
228 Lawyers, 102 Equity Partners, 18 Nonequity Partners, Indianapolis
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
454 Lawyers, 147 Equity Partners, 128 Nonequity Partners, Winston-Salem
Polsinelli Shughart
466 Lawyers, 90 Equity Partners, 161 Nonequity Partners, Kansas City, MO
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis
207 Lawyers, 112 Equity Partners, 13 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Buchalter Nemer
158 Lawyers, 79 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Cozen O'Connor
504 Lawyers, 138 Equity Partners, 120 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Dorsey & Whitney
567 Lawyers, 227 Equity Partners, 39 Nonequity Partners, Minneapolis
Fox Rothschild
450 Lawyers, 131 Equity Partners, 75 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Husch Blackwell
551 Lawyers, 165 Equity Partners, 181 Nonequity Partners, St. Louis
Day Pitney
324 Lawyers, 150 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Hartford
Epstein Becker & Green
300 Lawyers, 66 Equity Partners, 72 Nonequity Partners, National
Dykema Gossett
333 Lawyers, 94 Equity Partners, 105 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings
338 Lawyers, 186 Equity Partners, 44 Nonequity Partners, Birmingham
Howrey 9
572 Lawyers, 119 Equity Partners, 127 Nonequity Partners, National
Gross Revenue
Revenue Per
Lawyer
RPL Rank
Firm dissolved on March 15, 2011.
Am Law 200 Rank
9
Compensation
Average,
All Partners
$675,000
$101,500,000
194
$705,000
91
$540,000
$670,000
$438,000,000
64
$675,000
105
$530,000
$665,000
$216,000,000
127
$565,000
147
$460,000
$660,000
$250,000,000
114
$615,000
124
$520,000
$660,000
$376,500,000
73
$625,000
122
$590,000
$660,000
$193,000,000
139
$560,000
151
$490,000
$655,000
$129,000,000
172
$565,000
147
$590,000
$635,000
$266,000,000
105
$585,000
139
$475,000
$630,000
$219,500,000
126
$470,000
180
$425,000
$615,000
$142,000,000
167
$685,000
99
$595,000
$615,000
$114,500,000
180
$725,000
82
$615,000
$605,000
$277,500,000
99
$550,000
152
$445,000
$565,000
$322,500,000
83
$570,000
145
$530,000
$565,000
$239,500,000
120
$530,000
163
$470,000
$565,000
$279,000,000
98
$505,000
169
$400,000
$560,000
$195,000,000
137
$600,000
129
$560,000
$560,000
$162,000,000
156
$540,000
157
$415,000
$555,000
$175,000,000
145
$525,000
164
$405,000
$550,000
$183,000,000
142
$540,000
157
$495,000
$550,000
$262,000,000
108
$460,000
183
$445,000
Profits Per
Equity Partner
ZGuide • 19
The Am Law 200
PPEP Rank 2011
PPEP Rank 2010
The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
161
157
161
172
163
156
164
165
164
157
164
170
167
186
167
159
167
177
167
172
171
165
172
160
172
184
174
178
175
163
176
172
176
180
176
172
179
184
180
190
20 • ZGuide
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Jackson Lewis
614 Lawyers, 194 Equity Partners, 130 Nonequity Partners, National
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
399 Lawyers, 145 Equity Partners, 98 Nonequity Partners, Columbia, SC
Hinshaw & Culbertson
475 Lawyers, 102 Equity Partners, 202 Nonequity Partners, Chicago
Faegre & Benson
446 Lawyers, 213 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Minneapolis
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear
268 Lawyers, 110 Equity Partners, 4 Nonequity Partners, Irvine, CA
Stinson Morrison Hecker
283 Lawyers, 118 Equity Partners, 57 Nonequity Partners, Kansas City, MO
Ballard Spahr
446 Lawyers, 221 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Goulston & Storrs
154 Lawyers, 85 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Boston
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
237 Lawyers, 90 Equity Partners, 52 Nonequity Partners, Columbus
Thompson Hine
364 Lawyers, 110 Equity Partners, 85 Nonequity Partners, Cleveland
Baker & Daniels
279 Lawyers, 103 Equity Partners, 48 Nonequity Partners, Indianapolis
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
781 Lawyers, 89 Equity Partners, 344 Nonequity Partners, Los Angeles
Saul Ewing
220 Lawyers, 80 Equity Partners, 48 Nonequity Partners, Philadelphia
Thompson Coburn
325 Lawyers, 143 Equity Partners, 61 Nonequity Partners, St. Louis
Davis Wright Tremaine
484 Lawyers, 203 Equity Partners, 83 Nonequity Partners, Seattle
Armstrong Teasdale
230 Lawyers, 85 Equity Partners, 40 Nonequity Partners, St. Louis
Robinson & Cole
221 Lawyers, 79 Equity Partners, 25 Nonequity Partners, Hartford
Stoel Rives
373 Lawyers, 146 Equity Partners, 74 Nonequity Partners, Portland, OR
Littler Mendelson
755 Lawyers, 306 Equity Partners, 114 Nonequity Partners, National
Akerman Senterfitt
443 Lawyers, 177 Equity Partners, 71 Nonequity Partners, Miami
Gross Revenue
Am Law 200 Rank
Revenue Per
Lawyer
RPL Rank
Compensation
Average,
All Partners
$540,000
$295,500,000
94
$480,000
177
$420,000
$540,000
$212,500,000
128
$535,000
160
$425,000
$535,000
$200,000,000
133
$420,000
196
$325,000
$530,000
$256,500,000
112
$575,000
143
$530,000
$530,000
$163,500,000
153
$610,000
126
$520,000
$530,000
$144,000,000
165
$510,000
167
$430,000
$525,000
$273,500,000
102
$615,000
124
$525,000
$525,000
$103,500,000
192
$670,000
109
$525,000
$525,000
$125,000,000
176
$525,000
164
$380,000
$525,000
$184,000,000
141
$505,000
169
$415,000
$520,000
$152,500,000
160
$545,000
155
$425,000
$515,000
$269,500,000
103
$345,000
200
$305,000
$515,000
$121,500,000
178
$550,000
152
$440,000
$500,000
$163,000,000
154
$500,000
174
$425,000
$495,000
$265,500,000
106
$550,000
152
$445,000
$490,000
$101,000,000
195
$440,000
190
$405,000
$490,000
$104,500,000
189
$475,000
179
$430,000
$490,000
$195,000,000
137
$520,000
166
$415,000
$485,000
$381,500,000
71
$505,000
169
$405,000
$465,000
$236,000,000
122
$535,000
160
$415,000
Profits Per
Equity Partner
ZGuide • 21
The Am Law 200
PPEP Rank 2011
PPEP Rank 2010
The Largest Firms in the U.S., Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
180
195
180
186
183
183
184
195
184
165
184
170
187
176
187
189
189
182
189
188
191
190
192
180
193
198
193
190
195
195
195
­—
197
194
198
190
199
200
200
199
22 • ZGuide
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Holland & Hart
389 Lawyers, 199 Equity Partners, 0 Nonequity Partners, Denver
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
474 Lawyers, 137 Equity Partners, 134 Nonequity Partners, National
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz
527 Lawyers, 187 Equity Partners, 87 Nonequity Partners, Memphis
Kutak Rock
395 Lawyers, 167 Equity Partners, 67 Nonequity Partners, National
Michael Best & Friedrich
208 Lawyers, 87 Equity Partners, 49 Nonequity Partners, Milwaukee
Williams Mullen
277 Lawyers, 87 Equity Partners, 20 Nonequity Partners, Richmond
Fisher & Phillips
217 Lawyers, 98 Equity Partners, 29 Nonequity Partners, Atlanta
Lewis and Roca
188 Lawyers, 90 Equity Partners, 15 Nonequity Partners, Phoenix
Burr & Forman
226 Lawyers, 102 Equity Partners, 31 Nonequity Partners, Birmingham
Dinsmore & Shohl
407 Lawyers, 127 Equity Partners, 104 Nonequity Partners, Cincinnati
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone
335 Lawyers, 106 Equity Partners, 66 Nonequity Partners, Detroit
Dickinson Wright
229 Lawyers, 94 Equity Partners, 50 Nonequity Partners, Detroit
Adams and Reese
264 Lawyers, 111 Equity Partners, 55 Nonequity Partners, New Orleans
Lathrop & Gage
281 Lawyers, 86 Equity Partners, 58 Nonequity Partners, Kansas City, MO
Frost Brown Todd
401 Lawyers, 153 Equity Partners, 80 Nonequity Partners, Cincinnati
Hodgson Russ
199 Lawyers, 85 Equity Partners, 40 Nonequity Partners, Buffalo
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease
350 Lawyers, 170 Equity Partners, 5 Nonequity Partners, Columbus
Quarles & Brady
412 Lawyers, 171 Equity Partners, 68 Nonequity Partners, Milwaukee
Holme Roberts & Owen
192 Lawyers, 77 Equity Partners, 30 Nonequity Partners, Denver
GrayRobinson
245 Lawyers, 143 Equity Partners, 22 Nonequity Partners, Orlando
Gross Revenue
Am Law 200 Rank
Revenue Per
Lawyer
RPL Rank
Compensation
Average,
All Partners
$465,000
$198,500,000
135
$510,000
167
$465,000
$465,000
$228,500,000
123
$480,000
177
$355,000
$460,000
$248,000,000
116
$470,000
180
$390,000
$455,000
$168,500,000
148
$425,000
195
$385,000
$455,000
$105,500,000
188
$505,000
169
$370,000
$455,000
$127,000,000
174
$460,000
183
$435,000
$450,000
$107,500,000
186
$495,000
175
$405,000
$450,000
$92,500,000
199
$490,000
176
$415,000
$440,000
$100,500,000
196
$445,000
189
$365,000
$440,000
$167,000,000
150
$410,000
197
$330,000
$435,000
$146,500,000
163
$440,000
190
$355,000
$430,000
$104,000,000
190
$455,000
187
$360,000
$425,000
$121,000,000
179
$460,000
183
$350,000
$425,000
$122,500,000
177
$435,000
192
$345,000
$415,000
$172,500,000
147
$430,000
193
$350,000
$415,000
$92,000,000
200
$460,000
183
$305,000
$405,000
$150,000,000
161
$430,000
193
$395,000
$395,000
$207,500,000
130
$505,000
169
$360,000
$380,000
$104,000,000
190
$540,000
157
$355,000
$375,000
$113,500,000
182
$465,000
182
$355,000
Profits Per
Equity Partner
ZGuide • 23
Value Per Lawyer
2011 VPL
Rank
The Am Law 200, Ranked By Value Per Lawyer
Firm
1
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
2
VPL: Partner Comp/
Number of Lawyers,
FY 2010
Lawyers Needed
to Generate
$10 Million
$1,445,000
6.92
Irell & Manella
$940,000
10.64
3
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan
$815,000
12.27
4
Cahill Gordon & Reindel
$745,000
13.42
5
Kirkland & Ellis
$735,000
13.61
6
Sullivan & Cromwell
$720,000
13.89
7
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher I
$635,000
15.75
8
Munger, Tolles & Olson I
$625,000
16.00
9
Boies, Schiller & Flexner
$620,000
16.13
10
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley &
McCloy I
$590,000
16.95
11
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett I
$575,000
17.39
12
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
$560,000
17.86
13
Choate Hall & Stewart
$535,000
18.69
13
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom I
$535,000
18.69
15
Latham & Watkins I
$525,000
19.05
16
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
& Garrison I
$520,000
19.23
17
Williams & Connolly
$510,000
19.61
18
Fish & Richardson
$505,000
19.80
19
Davis Polk & Wardwell I
$485,000
20.62
19
Goodwin Procter
$485,000
20.62
24 • ZGuide
2011 VPL
Rank
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 2010/2011.
Firm
VPL: Partner Comp/
Number of Lawyers,
FY 2010
Lawyers Needed
to Generate
$10 Million
19
Kaye Scholer
$485,000
20.62
22
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &
Walker I
$480,000
20.83
22
Stevens & Lee
$480,000
20.83
24
Weil, Gotshal & Manges I
$475,000
21.05
25
Jeffer Mangels Butler &
Mitchell
$470,000
21.28
26
Dechert
$465,000
21.51
27
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
$460,000
21.74
28
Patterson Belknap Webb &
Tyler I
$455,000
21.98
29
Brown Rudnick
$450,000
22.22
29
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &
Jacobson
$450,000
22.22
29
McDermott Will & Emery
$450,000
22.22
29
Vinson & Elkins
$450,000
22.22
33
Jenner & Block
$445,000
22.47
33
Schulte Roth & Zabel
$445,000
22.47
33
Wiley Rein
$445,000
22.47
33
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr I
$445,000
22.47
37
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld
$440,000
22.73
37
Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton I
$440,000
22.73
39
Debevoise & Plimpton I
$435,000
22.99
39
Willkie Farr & Gallagher
$435,000
22.99
ZGuide • 25
Value Per Lawyer
2011 VPL
Rank
The Am Law 200, Ranked By Value Per Lawyer
Firm
VPL: Partner Comp/
Number of Lawyers,
FY 2010
Lawyers Needed
to Generate
$10 Million
41
Chapman and Cutler
$425,000
23.53
41
Proskauer Rose
$425,000
23.53
43
Honigman Miller Schwartz
and Cohn
$420,000
23.81
43
King & Spalding
$420,000
23.81
43
Loeb & Loeb
$420,000
23.81
46
Baker Botts
$415,000
24.10
46
Ropes & Gray I
$415,000
24.10
46
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
$415,000
24.10
49
Sidley Austin
$410,000
24.39
50
Andrews Kurth
$405,000
24.69
50
Vedder Price
$405,000
24.69
50
Winston & Strawn
$405,000
24.69
53
Bingham McCutchen
$400,000
25.00
53
Cooley
$400,000
25.00
55
Hughes Hubbard & Reed I
$395,000
25.32
55
Lowenstein Sandler
$395,000
25.32
55
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman
$395,000
25.32
58
Katten Muchin Rosenman
$390,000
25.64
59
Dewey & LeBoeuf I
$385,000
25.97
59
O'Melveny & Myers
$385,000
25.97
26 • ZGuide
2011 VPL
Rank
Firm
VPL: Partner Comp/
Number of Lawyers,
FY 2010
Lawyers Needed
to Generate
$10 Million
59
Schiff Hardin
$385,000
25.97
59
Shearman & Sterling I
$385,000
25.97
63
Greenberg Traurig
$380,000
26.32
64
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
$375,000
26.67
64
Morrison & Foerster I
$375,000
26.67
64
Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton
$375,000
26.67
67
Arnold & Porter
$370,000
27.03
67
Covington & Burling I
$370,000
27.03
67
Gardere Wynne Sewell
$370,000
27.03
67
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell
$370,000
27.03
71
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble
Mallory & Natsis
$360,000
27.78
71
Fenwick & West
$360,000
27.78
71
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati
$360,000
27.78
74
Barnes & Thornburg
$355,000
28.17
74
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan
$355,000
28.17
76
Fulbright & Jaworski
$350,000
28.57
76
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres &
Friedman
$350,000
28.57
76
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
$350,000
28.57
79
Cadwalader, Wickersham &
Taft
$345,000
28.99
79
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
Garrett & Dunner
$345,000
28.99
ZGuide • 27
Value Per Lawyer
2011 VPL
Rank
The Am Law 200, Ranked By Value Per Lawyer
Firm
VPL: Partner Comp/
Number of Lawyers,
FY 2010
Lawyers Needed
to Generate
$10 Million
79
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
$345,000
28.99
82
Luce, Forward, Hamilton &
Scripps
$340,000
29.41
83
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings
$335,000
29.85
83
Thompson & Knight
$335,000
29.85
85
Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck
$330,000
30.30
85
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,
Glovsky and Popeo
$330,000
30.30
85
Moore & Van Allen
$330,000
30.30
88
Alston & Bird
$325,000
30.77
88
Dickstein Shapiro
$325,000
30.77
88
Steptoe & Johnson
$325,000
30.77
91
Arent Fox
$320,000
31.25
91
Chadbourne & Parke
$320,000
31.25
91
Reed Smith
$320,000
31.25
94
Buchalter Nemer
$310,000
32.26
94
Foley & Lardner
$310,000
32.26
94
Ice Miller
$310,000
32.26
94
Venable
$310,000
32.26
94
Winstead
$310,000
32.26
99
Duane Morris
$305,000
32.79
99
Foley Hoag
$305,000
32.79
28 • ZGuide
2011 VPL
Rank
Firm
VPL: Partner Comp/
Number of Lawyers,
FY 2010
Lawyers Needed
to Generate
$10 Million
99
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
$305,000
32.79
99
Snell & Wilmer
$305,000
32.79
103
Bracewell & Giuliani
$300,000
33.33
103
Hunton & Williams
$300,000
33.33
103
Jackson Walker
$300,000
33.33
103
Perkins Coie
$300,000
33.33
107
Carlton Fields
$295,000
33.90
107
Hogan Lovells
$295,000
33.90
107
Holland & Knight
$295,000
33.90
107
Patton Boggs
$295,000
33.90
107
Shook, Hardy & Bacon
$295,000
33.90
107
SNR Denton
$295,000
33.90
113
Blank Rome
$290,000
34.48
113
Goulston & Storrs
$290,000
34.48
113
Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice
$290,000
34.48
116
Herrick, Feinstein
$285,000
35.09
116
Pepper Hamilton
$285,000
35.09
116
Sills Cummis & Gross
$285,000
35.09
119
K&L Gates
$280,000
35.71
119
Kilpatrick Stockton
$280,000
35.71
ZGuide • 29
Value Per Lawyer
The Am Law 200, Ranked By Value Per Lawyer
Lawyers Needed
to Generate
$10 Million
2011 VPL
Rank
VPL: Partner Comp/
Number of Lawyers,
FY 2010
Firm
119
Seyfarth Shaw
$280,000
35.71
122
Baker & Hostetler
$275,000
36.36
122
Crowell & Moring
$275,000
36.36
122
Dow Lohnes
$275,000
36.36
122
Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper &
Scinto
$275,000
36.36
122
Haynes and Boone
$275,000
36.36
122
McKenna Long & Aldridge
$275,000
36.36
122
Nixon Peabody
$275,000
36.36
122
White & Case
$275,000
36.36
130
Jones Day
$270,000
37.04
130
Kenyon & Kenyon
$270,000
37.04
130
Stinson Morrison Hecker
$270,000
37.04
130
Sullivan & Worcester
$270,000
37.04
134
Davis Wright Tremaine
$265,000
37.74
134
Thompson Coburn
$265,000
37.74
136
Ballard Spahr
$260,000
38.46
136
Day Pitney
$260,000
38.46
136
Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough
$260,000
38.46
139
Faegre & Benson
$255,000
39.22
139
Mayer Brown
$255,000
39.22
30 • ZGuide
Lawyers Needed
to Generate
$10 Million
2011 VPL
Rank
VPL: Partner Comp/
Number of Lawyers,
FY 2010
Firm
139
McGuireWoods
$255,000
39.22
139
Saul Ewing
$255,000
39.22
143
Dorsey & Whitney
$250,000
40.00
143
Drinker Biddle & Reath
$250,000
40.00
143
Husch Blackwell
$250,000
40.00
143
Townsend and Townsend and
Crew
$250,000
40.00
147
Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen
and Loewy
$245,000
40.82
147
Stoel Rives
$245,000
40.82
147
Troutman Sanders
$245,000
40.82
150
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
$240,000
41.67
150
Dykema Gossett
$240,000
41.67
150
Fisher & Phillips
$240,000
41.67
150
Gibbons
$240,000
41.67
150
GrayRobinson
$240,000
41.67
150
McCarter & English
$240,000
41.67
150
Michael Best & Friedrich
$240,000
41.67
157
Holland & Hart
$235,000
42.55
157
Kelley Drye & Warren
$235,000
42.55
159
Akerman Senterfitt
$230,000
43.48
159
Baker & Daniels
$230,000
43.48
ZGuide • 31
Value Per Lawyer
The Am Law 200, Ranked By Value Per Lawyer
Lawyers Needed
to Generate
$10 Million
2011 VPL
Rank
VPL: Partner Comp/
Number of Lawyers,
FY 2010
Firm
159
Dickinson Wright
$230,000
43.48
159
DLA Piper
$230,000
43.48
159
Kutak Rock
$230,000
43.48
159
Lewis and Roca
$230,000
43.48
159
Polsinelli Shughart
$230,000
43.48
159
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
$230,000
43.48
167
Cozen O'Connor
$225,000
44.44
167
Jackson Lewis
$225,000
44.44
167
Littler Mendelson
$225,000
44.44
167
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
$225,000
44.44
171
Adams and Reese
$220,000
45.45
171
Armstrong Teasdale
$220,000
45.45
171
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt &
Mosle
$220,000
45.45
171
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear
$220,000
45.45
171
Thompson Hine
$220,000
45.45
176
Baker & McKenzie
$215,000
46.51
176
Bryan Cave
$215,000
46.51
176
Burr & Forman
$215,000
46.51
176
Fox Rothschild
$215,000
46.51
176
Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker
$215,000
46.51
32 • ZGuide
2011 VPL
Rank
Firm
VPL: Partner Comp/
Number of Lawyers,
FY 2010
Lawyers Needed
to Generate
$10 Million
181
Baker, Donelson, Bearman,
Caldwell & Berkowitz
$205,000
48.78
181
Frost Brown Todd
$205,000
48.78
181
Hinshaw & Culbertson
$205,000
48.78
181
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart
$205,000
48.78
181
Quarles & Brady
$205,000
48.78
186
Holme Roberts & Owen
$200,000
50.00
186
Robinson & Cole
$200,000
50.00
188
Edwards Angell Palmer &
Dodge
$195,000
51.28
188
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and
Pease
$195,000
51.28
190
Dinsmore & Shohl
$190,000
52.63
190
Epstein Becker & Green
$190,000
52.63
190
Hodgson Russ
$190,000
52.63
190
Howrey
$190,000
52.63
194
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney &
Carpenter
$180,000
55.56
194
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and
Stone
$180,000
55.56
196
Lathrop & Gage
$175,000
57.14
196
Sedgwick
$175,000
57.14
198
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith
$170,000
58.82
198
Williams Mullen
$170,000
58.82
200
Gordon & Rees
$140,000
71.43
ZGuide • 33
The 2011 Am Law 100
The Times They
Are A-Changin’
So Must the Metrics
©
Zeughauser Group, LLC 2011
“Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'”
Bob Dylan
Dollars to donuts says that if you ask the chair or managing
partner of an Am Law 100, 200, or Global 100 law firm what
he sees as the biggest challenge his firm faces in the post-2008
recession era, more often than not his answer will be “building
top-line revenue.” This response neatly aligns with what every
Big Law partner would say is his top priority: “building a book
of business.” The exhortation to “build the top line” isn’t just
coming from firm chairs and managing partners. It has been
echoing through the conference halls at COO, CFO, and
CMO legal industry gatherings for 12 months, ever since coins
started jingling again in Big Law’s recession-emptied cash
registers. Even the soothsayers of gender diversity are calling
for the creation of a level playing field on which the underrepresented in Big Law’s partner ranks can “build their books
of business.”
Strategically driven top-line growth will always be a sign of
financial health. But, changing times are calling for law firm
leaders to pivot and address a more pressing and vexing
34 • ZGuide
challenge than building the top line: how to increase the
stickiness of their platforms for talent and clients. Industry
editors and academics have spent three years naval-gazing
over whether the traditional law firm model is dead, the
golden era is over, or the re-set button has been pushed. Very
sorry, but time is wasting. What matters is that simplistically
incentivizing, admitting, and rewarding partners for building
their books of business breeds behavior that will inevitably
lead to failure in an industry increasingly driven by clients
under cost pressure who can avail themselves of widely
available cheap labor and low production costs. Growing the
top line by attracting strong talent and clients is certainly a
competitive imperative, but it is all for naught if the platform
isn’t “sticky.”
The time-honored easy-to-measure metric of revenue per
lawyer, frequently hailed by The American Lawyer, belongs to
a time gone by as the most important measure of a law firm’s
health. The world of Big Law has gotten more complicated.
Just like providing quality work and extraordinary levels of
client service once sufficed for making partner and climbing
the compensation schedule, building a book of business is no
longer enough. It is only a piece of the pie.
The “new normal” in which law firms find themselves today
calls for a new, double-barreled test for measuring partner
potential and success. First, to make it as a partner today,
leadership must require the firm’s lawyers unfailingly to meet
or exceed client expectations on quality, service, cost, and
results on each matter as measured by the client’s desire to
come back for another matter and to refer additional clients
to the firm. Second, each partner must do that and deliver
the work at a level of matter profitability high enough to
enable the firm to generate profits sufficient to attract, train,
and retain more talent capable of consistent performance at
that level.
Executing on this “new normal” double-barreled metric for
partner success will require wholesale change at most firms.
For starters, partners and firms will need to measure and know
how well they are satisfying their clients and how profitably
partners are delivering matters to clients. Too many firms and
far too many partners have simply a hunch or nary a clue
about either. And firms will have to make hard decisions about
partners, practices, and offices that don’t, won’t, and can’t be
re-structured to meet the metrics.
ZGuide • 35
This may seem like tough medicine. It is. But inexorable and
accelerating industry trends have triggered change faster than
expected. The Global 25 predicted by Steve Brill in 1983 is
rapidly emerging. Most, if not all, of them have already taken
the medicine. The big, hairy monster firms are those with $2
billion a year or more in revenue or $2 million or more in
profits per partner, or both, and are approaching or passed
$3 million and $3 billion. As predicted by industry pundits
and noted by McKinsey a decade ago, these firms have gone
on a tear of unprecedented cherry-picking. They aren’t
cherry-picking the “average Joe” partner. Convergence, one
of the most relentless trends of the past quarter century, is
producing an ever-growing class of elite mega-rainmakers
with $25 and $50 million-plus books of business, and the
Global 25 are clawing them in. This phenomenon has driven
the Am Law 100 and 200 to adopt soaring average 10:1 partner
compensation ratios, double what they were five years ago,
sometimes tearing a firm’s cultural “fabric” in an effort to
hold onto partners with ultra-large portable practices. The
American Lawyer has reported ratios as high as 30:1, and
nobody is arguing with the number. The lock-step is collapsing
or is near collapse at the few remaining holdouts. For the firms
that find themselves among what we might call the “N75” (for
“next 75”), or the emerging second-tier, all of them competing
ferociously to occupy one of the few remaining slots left in
the Global 25, a $25 to $50 million hit in revenue is a material
loss. This is especially true in the face of another powerful
margin-corrosive market force: unbundling and off-loading
to non-law firm legal service providers some of the highest
margin, high-priced associate work, once the sole province
of Big Law. Know it or not, and some do and some don’t (the
latter the proverbial frogs in boiling water), these firms are in
the midst of a crisis, and no good crisis should be wasted.
The time is ripe for changing partner behavior. To draw an
analogy to inside the beltway politics, firms need to “eat their
peas.” The best place to start is with adopting, educating, and
communicating with partners (at appropriate times and in
appropriate ways) about the new metrics for success. Partners
will have to be educated about how to improve matter,
client, and their own profitability. These metrics are poorly
understood by vast numbers of partners; not only that, the
levers that drive them are rarely measured and addressed
in conversations between management and partners. Some
will undoubtedly raise the old arguments that measuring
and talking about partner, practice, and office profitability is
36 • ZGuide
divisive. But how can partners improve matter management if
it isn’t measured, or if it is kept secret from them? Quaint. Big
Law firms are run more like businesses every day. It shouldn't
be a struggle to educate the managers and line workers on
how to produce widgets more profitably while, at the same
time, creating a healthy "one-firm” environment in which
competition to achieve it is encouraged.
Techniques for measuring profitability have long been
debated at firms. Most have come to accept realization as an
acceptable measure, and it is a good one. Communicating to
partners how much more or less profitable the firm would be
if the realization rate on every matter were the same as for a
matter just completed would be a step in the right direction, as
would informing the partners of how the realization rate could
be improved. The same analysis should be applied to clients.
Likewise for profit margins. Practice group, sector, and office
leaders should engage in post-matter debriefings with client
team and engagement leaders to discuss how to improve
margins by adjusting staffing and improving utilization. In
many firms, it would serve to highlight the margin-eroding
effect of relying on the bloated ranks of high-priced, nonequity partner talent to do associate-level work.
A generation ago, partners at scores of firms endlessly debated
how to load costs for measuring matter and client profitability.
The big, hairy monsters got over the hump by making and
refining rough estimates. They recognized that satisfying
GAAP wasn’t necessary. And they devised many of their own
software apps. Today, off-the-shelf software is widely available.
Most firms have it. They just aren’t using it. Or management
uses it secretly. That needs to change.
Joined at the hip with the priority of improving profitability
is measuring, meeting, and exceeding client expectations on
service, cost, and results. Robust client feedback programs
are the only way this can be accomplished. Lawyers regularly
need to seek client feedback on how well they are meeting and
exceeding their clients’ needs by asking clients themselves,
surveying them using tools like the Net Promoter Score
(NPS) at the conclusion of every matter, and seeking in-depth
feedback using independent experts.
Once partners and firms measure, communicate, and turn to
improving the profitability of their client work and how satisfied
their clients are, they need to focus their resources on growing
ZGuide • 37
their most profitable and promising client relationships. Firms
must continuously reduce the billable and non-billable lawyer
time and firm resources devoted to less-profitable (save, of
course, pro bono), less-promising clients. Growing the most
profitable relationships should be brought about by rewarding
partners who successfully lead and manage client teams that
deliver high levels of client satisfaction and profitability. We
have entered an era in which firms have to be proficient at and
disciplined in winnowing out the wheat from the chaff when it
comes to clients. Deploying the right metrics is a prerequisite
to making that happen.
Measuring and rewarding performance based on client
satisfaction and profitability will encourage originating and
relationship partners to put the best team on the field, for it
is the best team, the team with the right expertise, that will
generate the best result most cost effectively. By doing so,
client teams are expanded across the platform, and clients
become more reliant on the firm’s platform of expertise than
on any individual partner, which is, after all, the end game.
The quality of hours expended, rather than the quantity,
becomes more important to the partners working the matter.
And it dissipates the desire to discount and puts the incentive
instead on devising fee arrangements aligned with the client’s
interest in driving results and efficiency and the firm’s interest
in higher levels of profitability. These incentives will lead to
greater time and attention devoted to matter staffing, planning,
and budgeting and, in turn, more and better communication
between and among the lawyers working on a matter and the
client.
As an industry, we have long known that exhorting partners
to build the top line produces invidious partner demands
to hold rates down, permit greater discounting, and take
whatever work comes over the transom, however badly it
may erode the bottom line and the brand. It flies in the face of
client demands for value in lieu of the billable hours partners
connote with building their books.
None of this is to suggest that firms make short shrift of, or cast
aside, other important compensation metrics relating to client
origination, working attorney hours, collections, and other
important firm initiatives, or subrogate them in importance
to a new double-barreled test for success. But it is to suggest
that firms measure, communicate to partners, and attach
great importance to the extent to which matter origination is
38 • ZGuide
driven by exceeding client expectations for cost, service, and
results (in addition to quality) in making partner admission
and compensation decisions. For most firms, this would be
a radical new partner compensation and admission metric.
Partners who have succeeded by meeting a simpler standard
of producing revenue will likely argue that client satisfaction
is implicitly accounted for by the “stickiness” of clients to a
partner and the firm. This is hard to refute, but hardly any
argument for not making it explicit. And it doesn’t address
the issue of profitability. Indeed, the Achilles heel of too many
firms is that they achieve high levels of client satisfaction with
cost in large part by discounting, but without paying sufficient
attention to eroding margins.
Globalization and the battle for market share among the
world’s most elite law firms isn’t going to go away. The
unrelenting pressure to do it faster, better, and cheaper will
only accelerate. As has happened across every sector of the
economy, globalization is driving and will continue to drive
law firms to reduce the cost of production and increase what
is referred to in the retail industry as “same-store sales” by
exceeding customer expectations on value. The growing
availability of off-shore, on-shore, and outsourced providers
will force firms to manage teams of lawyers exponentially
more complex and diverse, and beyond their own. The times
demand that success be measured in a way beyond the
simple metric of hours times lawyer rates and that firms turn
to measuring and rewarding partner success in terms that
account for today’s challenge to exceed client expectations for
service, cost, and results at the highest levels of profitability.
Ipso facto, the firms that do so will be more “sticky.”
u
ZGuide • 39
The Global 100
Methodology
The Global 100 chart ranks the world’s largest law
firms by profits per equity partner, revenue, and head
count. The charts, which include data for the fiscal
year most recently published by ALM, were compiled
by The American Lawyer in cooperation with Legal
Week in London and published in the October 2010
issue of The American Lawyer. Although foreign
law firms differ in structure from U.S. law firms, The
American Lawyer took steps 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 116 firms were included
on the global charts.
Profits Per Equity Partner
Firms are ranked by Profits Per Equity Partner (PPEP).
PPEP figures were rounded to the nearest $5,000, and were
obtained from the same sources that provided the revenue
figures. Only firms included in the Most Revenue or Most
Lawyers rankings were considered for PPEP ranking.
Most Revenue
The firms ranked by gross revenue are the world’s 100
highest-grossing law firms. Revenue figures are rounded
to the nearest $500,000, and Revenue Per Lawyers figures
were rounded to the nearest $5,000. Financial information
for U.S.-based law firms is obtained from The American
Lawyer’s The Am Law 100 report, except where otherwise
noted. Financial information for law firms in Europe is
from Legal Week. Australian and Canadian firms were
surveyed by The American Lawyer.
40 • ZGuide
Most Lawyers
The ranking in the last column of the Global 100 chart
is based on the average number of full-time-equivalent
lawyers at the firm. The firms on this chart are the world’s
100 largest.
Location of Firms
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 comes from the 2009 National
Law Journal survey of the 250 largest U.S. firms (the NLJ 250),
or from the firm’s Web site.
u
ZGuide • 41
The Global 100
2010 Global 100
PPEP Rank
The World’s Largest Firms, Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
248 Lawyers, 86 Equity Partners, New York
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
367 Lawyers, 77 Equity Partners, Los Angeles
Sullivan & Cromwell
728 Lawyers, 167 Equity Partners, New York
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
516 Lawyers, 92 Equity Partners, New York
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
696 Lawyers, 116 Equity Partners, New York
Kirkland & Ellis
1,405 Lawyers, 270 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
841 Lawyers, 177 Equity Partners, New York
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
497 Lawyers, 61 Equity Partners, New York
Slaughter and May
537 Lawyers, 124 Equity Partners, London
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
1,055 Lawyers, 192 Equity Partners, International (U.S.)
Weil, Gotshal & Manges
1,248 Lawyers, 184 Equity Partners, New York
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
565 Lawyers, 119 Equity Partners, New York
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
2,085 Lawyers, 413 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
1,946 Lawyers, 435 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Schulte Roth & Zabel
409 Lawyers, 85 Equity Partners, New York
Davis Polk & Wardwell
731 Lawyers, 169 Equity Partners, New York
Willkie Farr & Gallagher
633 Lawyers, 134 Equity Partners, New York
Dechert
822 Lawyers, 149 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
1,026 Lawyers, 284 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Latham & Watkins
2,005 Lawyers, 444 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
42 • ZGuide
Revenue Per Lawyer
Global 100 Rank
Most Lawyers
Gross Revenue
Global 100 Rank
Most Revenue
Profits Per
Equity Partner
$4,300,000
$585,000,000
51
$2,530,000
—
$3,130,000
$419,000,000
79
$1,055,000
—
$2,965,000
$995,000,000
18
$1,420,000
70
$2,715,000
$568,500,000
54
$1,190,000
—
$2,690,000
$665,500,000
44
$1,020,000
78
$2,495,000
$1,428,000,000
9
$1,010,000
18
$2,415,000
$870,500,000
27
$1,105,000
55
$2,410,000
$456,500,000
73
$1,000,000
—
$2,410,000
$628,500,000
48
$1,240,000
—
$2,385,000
$965,000,000
20
$975,000
27
$2,315,000
$1,233,000,000
12
$1,015,000
20
$2,230,000
$601,500,000
50
$1,125,000
—
$2,200,000
$1,787,000,000
6
$875,000
6
$2,160,000
$2,100,000,000
2
$1,130,000
9
$2,130,000
$397,000,000
84
$995,000
—
$2,090,000
$846,000,000
32
$1,235,000
69
$2,005,000
$549,500,000
59
$930,000
87
$1,960,000
$713,000,000
38
$910,000
57
$1,910,000
$995,000,000
18
$1,010,000
30
$1,900,000
$1,821,000,000
5
$970,000
7
ZGuide • 43
The Global 100
2010 Global 100
PPEP Rank
The World’s Largest Firms, Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
29
31
31
33
33
33
36
37
38
39
40
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Linklaters
2,167 Lawyers, 429 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
917 Lawyers, 193 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Debevoise & Plimpton
712 Lawyers, 144 Equity Partners, New York
Shearman & Sterling
861 Lawyers, 185 Equity Partners, International (U.S.)
Allen & Overy
1,969 Lawyers, 358 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Dewey & LeBoeuf
1,035 Lawyers, 180 Equity Partners, New York
White & Case
1,851 Lawyers, 278 Equity Partners, International (U.S.)
O'Melveny & Myers
901 Lawyers, 218 Equity Partners, Los Angeles
Clifford Chance
2,586 Lawyers, 372 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Sidley Austin
1,681 Lawyers, 304 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
744 Lawyers, 170 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Proskauer Rose
702 Lawyers, 164 Equity Partners, New York
Bingham McCutchen
929 Lawyers, 161 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
King & Spalding
808 Lawyers, 151 Equity Partners, Atlanta
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
600 Lawyers, 124 Equity Partners, Palo Alto
Kaye Scholer
446 Lawyers, 130 Equity Partners, New York
Ropes & Gray
920 Lawyers, 252 Equity Partners, Boston
Baker Botts
743 Lawyers, 186 Equity Partners, Houston
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
1,046 Lawyers, 187 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Herbert Smith
1,056 Lawyers, 135 Equity Partners, London
44 • ZGuide
Global 100 Rank
Most Revenue
$1,900,000
$1,852,500,000
4
$860,000
5
$1,875,000
$889,000,000
25
$970,000
43
$1,870,000
$668,000,000
42
$975,000
73
$1,735,000
$801,000,000
35
$985,000
51
$1,725,000
$1,644,500,000
7
$810,000
8
$1,605,000
$914,000,000
23
$865,000
29
$1,595,000
$1,307,000,000
11
$690,000
10
$1,470,000
$826,500,000
34
$960,000
45
$1,460,000
$1,874,500,000
3
$725,000
2
$1,460,000
$1,357,000,000
10
$855,000
15
$1,455,000
$719,000,000
37
$990,000
66
$1,455,000
$643,000,000
46
$990,000
77
$1,445,000
$860,000,000
29
$930,000
40
$1,445,000
$677,500,000
41
$850,000
58
$1,445,000
$501,000,000
66
$835,000
97
$1,420,000
$432,000,000
76
$970,000
—
$1,405,000
$789,500,000
36
$875,000
42
$1,365,000
$575,000,000
53
$795,000
67
$1,360,000
$847,500,000
31
$830,000
28
$1,355,000
$704,500,000
40
$660,000
26
Revenue Per Lawyer
Global 100 Rank
Most Lawyers
Gross Revenue
Profits Per
Equity Partner
ZGuide • 45
The Global 100
2010 Global 100
PPEP Rank
The World’s Largest Firms, Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
41
42
43
43
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
51
53
53
55
56
57
58
59
60
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Fish & Richardson
427 Lawyers, 110 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Greenberg Traurig
1,728 Lawyers, 292 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
493 Lawyers, 133 Equity Partners, New York
McDermott Will & Emery
1,011 Lawyers, 255 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Winston & Strawn
932 Lawyers, 184 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Goodwin Procter
796 Lawyers, 207 Equity Partners, Boston
Vinson & Elkins
703 Lawyers, 206 Equity Partners, Houston
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
479 Lawyers, 77 Equity Partners, Los Angeles
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
1,363 Lawyers, 263 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
DLA Piper US
1,220 Lawyers, 213 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Covington & Burling
661 Lawyers, 209 Equity Partners, Washington, D.C.
Mallesons Stephen Jaques
861 Lawyers, 178 Equity Partners, National (Australia)
Cooley
628 Lawyers, 152 Equity Partners, Palo Alto
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner
370 Lawyers, 102 Equity Partners, Washington, D.C.
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
962 Lawyers, 309 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Morrison & Foerster
1,005 Lawyers, 256 Equity Partners, San Francisco
Baker & McKenzie
3,774 Lawyers, 717 Equity Partners, International (U.S.)
Jenner & Block
448 Lawyers, 128 Equity Partners, Chicago
Hogan & Hartson 1
1,139 Lawyers, 287 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Katten Muchin Rosenman
608 Lawyers, 140 Equity Partners, Chicago
46 • ZGuide
Profits Per
Equity Partner
Gross Revenue
Revenue Per Lawyer
Global 100 Rank
Most Lawyers
Hogan & Hartson merged with Lovells in May 2010 to form Hogan Lovells
Global 100 Rank
Most Revenue
1
$1,340,000
$417,000,000
80
$990,000
—
$1,310,000
$1,173,000,000
13
$685,000
13
$1,300,000
$424,500,000
77
$905,000
—
$1,300,000
$829,000,000
33
$855,000
32
$1,285,000
$705,000,000
39
$835,000
39
$1,275,000
$658,000,000
45
$790,000
60
$1,270,000
$562,000,000
55
$810,000
76
$1,245,000
$361,000,000
96
$755,000
—
$1,235,000
$1,068,500,000
15
$810,000
19
$1,230,000
$1,014,500,000
17
$810,000
21
$1,200,000
$583,000,000
52
$895,000
84
$1,200,000
$392,000,000
87
$455,000
51
$1,170,000
$507,000,000
65
$805,000
89
$1,170,000
$349,000,000
99
$975,000
—
$1,155,000
$941,000,000
22
$1,010,000
35
$1,140,000
$884,000,000
26
$880,000
33
$1,125,000
$2,104,000,000
1
$558,000
1
$1,115,000
$367,500,000
95
$855,000
—
$1,110,000
$864,500,000
28
$770,000
24
$1,100,000
$420,500,000
78
$695,000
95
ZGuide • 47
The Global 100
2010 Global 100
PPEP Rank
The World’s Largest Firms, Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
61
62
62
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
74
76
77
78
79
79
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Ashurst
801 Lawyers, 143 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Garrigues
1,757 Lawyers, 101 Equity Partners, Madrid
Mayer Brown
1,693 Lawyers, 274 Equity Partners, International (U.S.)
Lovells 1
1,483 Lawyers, 239 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Arnold & Porter
624 Lawyers, 209 Equity Partners, Washington, D.C.
Reed Smith
1,433 Lawyers, 315 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell
532 Lawyers, 131 Equity Partners, Dallas
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
687 Lawyers, 173 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Clayton Utz
874 Lawyers, 154 Equity Partners, National (Australia)
Alston & Bird
851 Lawyers, 152 Equity Partners, Atlanta
Allens Arthur Robinson
896 Lawyers, 178 Equity Partners, National (Australia)
K&L Gates
1,746 Lawyers, 295 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Howrey 2
695 Lawyers, 152 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Foley & Lardner
940 Lawyers, 178 Equity Partners, Milwaukee
Hunton & Williams
863 Lawyers, 245 Equity Partners, Richmond
DLA Piper International
2,282 Lawyers, 187 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Fulbright & Jaworski
916 Lawyers, 332 Equity Partners, Houston
Eversheds
1,217 Lawyers, 132 Equity Partners, National (U.K.)
McGuireWoods
856 Lawyers, 176 Equity Partners, Richmond
Perkins Coie
677 Lawyers, 137 Equity Partners, Seattle
48 • ZGuide
Hogan & Hartson merged with Lovells in May 2010 to form Hogan Lovells.
Howrey's partners voted to dissolve the firm in March 2011.
Profits Per
Equity Partner
Gross Revenue
Revenue Per Lawyer
Global 100 Rank
Most Lawyers
2
Global 100 Rank
Most Revenue
1
$1,080,000
$459,000,000
72
$585,000
59
$1,060,000
$466,000,000
70
$265,000
11
$1,060,000
$1,118,000,000
14
$675,000
14
$1,040,000
$849,000,000
30
$580,000
16
$1,010,000
$524,000,000
63
$855,000
91
$1,005,000
$942,000,000
21
$660,000
17
$980,000
$399,000,000
82
$750,000
—
$950,000
$533,500,000
62
$805,000
80
$945,000
$351,000,000
97
$400,000
48
$910,000
$551,000,000
58
$670,000
54
$888,000
$380,800,000
90
$425,000
46
$860,000
$1,034,500,000
16
$605,000
12
$845,000
$480,000,000
68
$705,000
79
$840,000
$667,000,000
43
$710,000
38
$840,000
$615,000,000
49
$715,000
50
$825,000
$910,000,000
24
$400,000
4
$815,000
$642,500,000
47
$710,000
44
$810,000
$556,500,000
56
$465,000
22
$800,000
$509,000,000
64
$595,000
53
$800,000
$433,000,000
75
$645,000
82
ZGuide • 49
The Global 100
2010 Global 100
PPEP Rank
The World’s Largest Firms, Ranked By Profits Per Equity Partner
79
82
83
83
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
91
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Firm
Lawyers, Partners, Location
Salans
710 Lawyers, 73 Equity Partners, International (France)
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
838 Lawyers, 151 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Venable
512 Lawyers, 158 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker
756 Lawyers, 138 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal 3
672 Lawyers, 136 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Freehills
959 Lawyers, 202 Equity Partners, National (Australia)
Jones Day
2,530 Lawyers, 797 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Norton Rose
1,019 Lawyers, 190 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Duane Morris
613 Lawyers, 130 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Bird & Bird
738 Lawyers, 81 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
Berwin Leighton Paisner
627 Lawyers, 93 Equity Partners, London
Simmons & Simmons
764 Lawyers, 120 Equity Partners, International (U.K.)
CMS Cameron McKenna
777 Lawyers, 101 Equity Partners, London
Holland & Knight
962 Lawyers, 191 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Seyfarth Shaw
718 Lawyers, 220 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Troutman Sanders
641 Lawyers, 180 Equity Partners, Atlanta
Addleshaw Goddard
583 Lawyers, 95 Equity Partners, National (U.K.)
Nixon Peabody
718 Lawyers, 214 Equity Partners, National (U.S.)
Pinsent Masons
923 Lawyers, 111 Equity Partners, National (U.K.)
Bryan Cave
1,005 Lawyers, 202 Equity Partners, St. Louis
50 • ZGuide
Revenue Per Lawyer
$800,000
$260,000,000
—
—
$795,000
$545,000,000
61
$650,000
56
$785,000
$349,500,000
98
$675,000
—
$785,000
$270,000,000
—
$780,000
$472,500,000
69
$720,000
83
$775,000
$378,000,000
91
$395,000
37
$765,000
$1,520,000,000
8
$615,000
3
$760,000
$481,000,000
67
$450,000
31
$755,000
$387,500,000
89
$635,000
92
$730,000
$316,000,000
—
—
68
$715,000
$299,000,000
—
—
90
$715,000
$391,500,000
88
$710,000
$336,000,000
—
$695,000
$545,500,000
60
$585,000
35
$690,000
$453,500,000
74
$625,000
71
$670,000
$376,500,000
92
$580,000
86
$665,000
$262,500,000
—
$655,000
$465,000,000
71
$640,000
$322,500,000
—
$625,000
$555,000,000
57
Profits Per
Equity Partner
Gross Revenue
—
$550,000
—
—
$650,000
—
$555,000
Global 100 Rank
Most Lawyers
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal merged with Denton Wilde Sapte in September 2010 to form SNR Denton.
Global 100 Rank
Most Revenue
3
74
65
63
61
98
71
41
33
ZGuide • 51
The Corporate
Global 100Scorecard
Methodology
The American Lawyer's Corporate Scorecard
tracks the transactional practices of leading firms.
Corporate finance is a collection of subspecialties,
and their scorecard ranks firms within those areas.
Unless otherwise noted, data includes only public,
registered, underwritten offerings or deals transacted
in 2010, including firmly underwritten rule 144a
transactions, but not pure private placements or the
filing of shelf registrations. Values are as of February
2011, unless otherwise noted.
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 and Private Equity Data
includes deals with a North American–based target that were
announced but not necessarily completed in 2010 that are
valued at $100 million or more, including debt. Only counsel
to bidders that billed more than $100,000 are given credit. In
some cases, a firm’s involvement is prorated, depending on its
role, and the firm is given partial credit.
52 • ZGuide
IPOs Includes offerings by U.S. and foreign corporations in
the U.S. marketplace on the U.S. IPOs chart, and offerings
outside the U.S. on the Non-U.S. IPOs chart.
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.
Corporate Debt Investment-grade debt includes securities
with a Standard & Poor's rating equal to or greater than BBBand 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 2010. Short-term, preliminary,
and private placement issues are not included.
Project Finance Data is based on deals signed and funded
in 2010 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 Debtor’s counsel includes only the law firms that
filed the bankruptcy on behalf of the company. Assets are from
the companies’ most recently filed annual reports prior to filing
under Chapter 11.
u
ZGuide • 53
The Corporate Scorecard
Value
of Deals
Rank by
Value
of Deals
2011 2010
Number
of Deals
Mergers and Acquisitions
Rank by
Number
of Deals
2011 2010
Counsel to Principals
(in millions)
Sullivan & Cromwell
$180,504
1
16
58
7
7
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
$159,762
2
3
100
1
1
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
$138,853
3
5
78
4
6
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
$133,441
4
—
45
10
12
12
Blake, Cassels & Graydon
$128,134
5
8
52
8
Latham & Watkins
$126,836
6
18
86
2
2
Davis Polk & Wardwell
$126,045
7
9
42
12
11
Weil, Gotshal & Manges
$120,947
8
4
67
5
3
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
$111,890
9
1
48
9
8
Slaughter and May
$111,044
10
—
—
—
—
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
$99,875
11
13
39
15
8
Jones Day
$94,002
12
—
63
6
4
Linklaters
$75,817
13
—
40
13
—
—
Stikeman Elliott
$75,390
14
—
—
—
Debevoise & Plimpton
$70,727
15
17
33
20
19
Mayer Brown
$68,747
16
15
38
17
—
Vinson & Elkins
$62,332
17
—
45
10
8
Ropes & Gray
$60,711
18
—
40
13
22
White & Case
$59,672
19
—
—
—
—
Baker Botts
20
21
—
—
22
—
—
—
82
3
5
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
—
—
19
39
15
20
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison
—
—
23
38
17
16
Shearman & Sterling
—
—
25
37
19
—
Counsel to Investment Advisors
Rank by
Number of
Deals
2011 2010
Number
of Deals
$55,057
Kirkland & Ellis
Value
of Deals
(in millions)
Rank by
Value of
Deals
2011 2010
Dewey & LeBoeuf
39
1
1
$69,704
3
Sullivan & Cromwell
31
2
6
$40,573
9
3
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
27
3
4
$99,670
1
10
Latham & Watkins
26
4
2
$64,090
5
7
Shearman & Sterling
24
5
3
$51,487
6
4
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
20
6
7
$69,579
4
5
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
19
7
10
$36,547
10
—
Davis Polk & Wardwell
18
8
5
—
—
8
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &
Jacobson
15
9
10
$69,720
2
—
Alston & Bird
14
10
8
$42,270
8
—
Greenberg Traurig
14
10
—
—
—
—
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
—
—
8
$51,032
7
9
Source: mergermarket
54 • ZGuide
2
Value
of Deals
Rank by
Value
of Deals
2011 2010
Number
of Deals
Private Equity
Rank by
Number
of Deals
2011 2010
Counsel to Bidders
(in millions)
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
$29,323
1
Latham & Watkins
$17,542
Kirkland & Ellis
$13,820
Ropes & Gray
$6,791
4
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
$6,523
5
Herbert Smith
$4,944
6
Debevoise & Plimpton
$4,578
7
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
$4,165
8
1
4
11
6
Baker Botts
$4,139
9
—
—
—
—
Richards, Layton & Finger
$4,078
10
—
—
—
—
Alston & Bird
$4,021
11
—
3
13
—
Greenberg Traurig
$3,905
12
—
—
—
—
Weil, Gotshal & Manges
$3,502
13
10
9
5
4
Dechert
$2,870
14
7
3
13
11
Willkie Farr & Gallagher
$2,814
15
—
—
—
—
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
—
—
—
3
13
—
Clifford Chance
—
—
—
4
11
—
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &
Jacobson
—
—
12
5
9
—
Jones Day
—
—
—
5
9
6
Linklaters
—
—
—
3
13
—
O'Melveny & Myers
—
—
15
3
13
—
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison
—
—
—
7
6
11
Schulte Roth & Zabel
—
—
—
3
13
—
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
—
—
—
3
13
—
3
23
1
3
2
11
18
3
1
3
—
22
2
2
6
7
6
—
—
14
4
6
—
—
—
—
—
7
6
6
Source: mergermarket
ZGuide • 55
The Corporate Scorecard
Issuer’s Counsel
Number of
Issues
IPOs
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
8
2
$2,930
3
—
—
—
—
$784
5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Latham & Watkins
8
1
—
$707
Vinson & Elkins
8
1
—
Goodwin Procter
5
3
—
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
5
3
1
Cooley
4
5
—
DLA Piper
4
5
K&L Gates
4
5
4
5
1
$879
4
4
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
4
5
—
$503
10
—
Kirkland & Ellis
3
10
—
—
—
—
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
3
10
—
—
—
—
3
10
1
$565
9
—
Jenner & Block
—
—
—
$9,070
1
—
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
—
—
—
$9,070
1
—
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
—
—
—
$753
6
5
Ropes & Gray
—
—
—
$732
7
—
Number of
Issues
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Underwriter’s Counsel
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
Davis Polk & Wardwell
14
1
1
$10,808
1
1
Latham & Watkins
11
2
4
$1,472
5
—
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
9
3
—
$2,433
3
—
Baker Botts
5
4
—
$1,832
4
—
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
4
5
—
$1,059
7
—
Sidley Austin
4
5
—
$642
10
—
Sullivan & Cromwell
4
5
2
$858
8
2
Andrews Kurth
3
8
—
$1,183
6
—
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
3
8
2
9
4
Faegre & Benson
3
8
—
—
—
—
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
3
8
—
—
—
5
Goodwin Procter
3
8
—
—
—
—
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
3
8
—
—
—
3
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
3
8
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
$9,433
2
—
Stikeman Elliott
Source: Thomson Reuters
56 • ZGuide
$764
Number
of Issues
Non-U.S. IPOs
2011
Rank by Number
of Issues
(in millions)
2011
Rank by
Proceeds
Conyers Dill & Pearman
17
1
$511
3
Maples and Calder
15
2
$557
2
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
14
3
$586
1
Han Kun Law Offices
6
4
—
—
Jun He Law Offices
6
4
—
—
Issuer’s Counsel
6
4
$429
4
Kirkland & Ellis
—
—
$327
5
Loyens & Loeff
—
—
$327
5
Proceeds
Number
of Issues
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
Proceeds
2011
Rank by Number
of Issues
(in millions)
2011
Rank by
Proceeds
Commerce & Finance Law Offices
12
1
$536
3
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
12
1
$703
1
Davis Polk & Wardwell
6
3
$665
2
Fangda Partners
5
4
—
—
Haiwen & Partners
5
4
—
—
Jun He Law Offices
5
4
$340
5
Latham & Watkins
5
4
$407
4
Shearman & Sterling
5
4
—
—
Underwriter’s Counsel
Source: Thomson Reuters
Issuer’s Counsel
Number of
Issues
Equities by U.S. Corporations, Excluding IPOs
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
Vinson & Elkins
31
1
1
$5,181
4
—
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
25
2
3
$29,822
1
1
Cooley
24
3
4
—
—
—
Latham & Watkins
18
4
5
—
—
—
16
5
—
—
—
—
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
—
—
—
$9,169
2
—
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
—
—
—
$5,801
3
2
Davis Polk & Wardwell
—
—
2
$4,592
5
4
Underwriter’s Counsel
Number of
Issues
Andrews Kurth
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Davis Polk & Wardwell
84
1
Latham & Watkins
45
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
30
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
28
Goodwin Procter
22
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
—
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
1
$30,460
1
4
2
2
$9,676
3
—
3
—
$7,467
5
—
4
3
$27,565
2
1
5
—
—
—
—
—
4
$8,958
4
2
Source: Thomson Reuters
ZGuide • 57
The Corporate Scorecard
Issuer’s Counsel
Number of
Issues
Investment-Grade Debt
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
84
1
Sullivan & Cromwell
71
2
Latham & Watkins
42
3
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
32
4
5
$33,042
3
3
Sidley Austin
27
5
6
—
—
—
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
27
5
3
$26,777
4
4
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
22
7
6
$23,545
6
5
Dewey & LeBoeuf
20
8
4
$16,923
10
10
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
19
9
—
—
—
—
Mayer Brown
17
10
—
—
—
—
Shearman & Sterling
17
10
6
—
—
6
Weil, Gotshal & Manges
—
—
—
$17,740
7
—
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
—
—
9
$17,023
8
—
Clifford Chance
—
—
—
$16,949
9
—
Sidley Austin
Number of
Issues
Davis Polk & Wardwell
Underwriter’s Counsel
2
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
$72,295
1
2
1
$63,115
2
1
10
$26,546
5
7
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
115
1
2
$68,155
3
3
Davis Polk & Wardwell
98
2
1
$88,406
1
1
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
57
3
8
$43,314
5
5
Shearman & Sterling
54
4
3
$53,979
4
2
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
53
5
4
$80,741
2
6
Dewey & LeBoeuf
42
6
7
$17,952
10
9
Sullivan & Cromwell
38
7
6
$25,979
7
7
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
34
8
5
$39,017
6
4
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
24
9
9
$21,312
9
8
Clifford Chance
21
10
—
—
—
—
Linklaters
—
—
—
$22,745
8
—
Source: Thomson Reuters
Issuer’s Counsel
Number of
Issues
High-Yield Debt
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
45
1
1
$23,337
1
1
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
36
2
1
$23,057
2
1
Latham & Watkins
35
3
2
$14,944
3
3
Kirkland & Ellis
31
4
8
$13,289
4
2
Vinson & Elkins
22
5
3
$7,348
8
9
Davis Polk & Wardwell
19
6
5
$8,242
7
5
Weil, Gotshal & Manges
18
7
9
$5,726
10
—
White & Case
16
8
9
$10,349
5
6
58 • ZGuide
Issuer’s Counsel
Shearman & Sterling
Number of
Issues
High-Yield Debt (continued)
15
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
9
—
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
$9,106
6
—
14
10
—
—
—
—
Baker Botts
—
—
9
$7,129
9
—
Underwriter's Counsel
Cahill Gordon & Reindel
Number of
Issues
Sidley Austin
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
190
1
1
$100,400
1
1
Latham & Watkins
71
2
2
$32,461
2
2
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
54
3
3
$30,600
3
4
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
52
4
5
$20,272
5
5
Davis Polk & Wardwell
46
5
6
$21,448
4
6
Shearman & Sterling
39
6
4
$19,006
6
3
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
27
7
7
$8,999
7
8
White & Case
26
8
10
$7,565
9
—
Vinson & Elkins
15
9
8
$5,955
10
—
Allen & Overy
10
10
10
$8,215
8
7
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
10
10
8
—
9
—
Source: Thomson Reuters
Issuer’s Counsel
Number of
Issues
Asset-Backed Securities
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
19
1
2
$13,571
2
2
Kirkland & Ellis
19
1
—
$10,342
3
—
Mayer Brown
17
3
1
$14,391
1
1
Dewey & LeBoeuf
8
4
4
$4,969
4
3
Hunton & Williams
7
5
—
$1,887
8
—
Greenberg Traurig
6
6
—
$3,243
5
—
Allen & Overy
5
7
—
$2,803
7
—
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
5
7
—
$2,971
6
—
McGuireWoods
3
9
—
$1,770
9
—
Weil, Gotshal & Manges
3
9
—
$1,651
10
—
Underwriter’s Counsel
Number of
Issues
Bingham McCutchen
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
Bingham McCutchen
58
1
1
$24,871
1
1
Sidley Austin
25
2
2
$15,466
2
2
Mayer Brown
23
3
4
$12,521
3
—
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal 1
16
4
—
$4,204
5
—
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
10
5
4
$6,131
4
—
S
onnenschein Nath & Rosenthal merged with Denton Wilde Sapte in September 2010 to form SNR Denton.
Source: Thomson Reuters
1
ZGuide • 59
The Corporate Scorecard
Number of
Issues
Mortgage-Backed Securities
Issuer’s Counsel
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Proceeds
(in millions)
16
1
4
$11,662
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
1
4
2
1
$6,214
2
3
5
3
1
—
—
2
Allen & Overy
4
4
—
$6,026
3
—
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
4
4
—
—
—
—
Clifford Chance
—
—
—
$5,647
4
—
Shepherd and Wedderburn
—
—
—
$1,979
5
—
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
Underwriter’s Counsel
Number of
Issues
15
Bingham McCutchen
1
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal 1
20
1
1
$18,531
1
5
Bingham McCutchen
13
2
1
$6,884
3
4
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
10
3
3
$7,066
2
—
4
4
—
—
—
—
Kaye Scholer
Linklaters
2
5
—
$6,571
4
—
Sidley Austin
—
—
—
$1,979
5
—
Tods Murray
—
—
—
$1,979
5
—
S
onnenschein Nath & Rosenthal merged with Denton Wilde Sapte in September 2010 to form SNR Denton.
Source: Thomson Reuters
1
Bond Counsel
Number of
Issues
Municipal Bonds
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
Gilmore & Bell
632
1
2
$6,553
15
13
Chapman and Cutler
602
2
1
$8,100
10
8
Quarles & Brady
443
3
5
—
—
—
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
416
4
3
$44,686
1
1
Kutak Rock
375
5
10
$15,159
4
7
Fulbright & Jaworski
363
6
8
$11,173
8
9
McCall, Parkhurst & Horton
360
7
9
$11,467
7
5
Dorsey & Whitney
350
8
4
—
—
—
Hawkins Delafield & Wood
339
9
7
$21,827
2
2
Peck, Shaffer & Williams
284
10
15
$7,567
11
—
Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge
281
11
11
$10,045
9
10
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
275
12
12
$13,550
5
4
Ahlers & Cooney
269
13
6
—
—
—
K&L Gates
215
14
—
—
—
14
Friday, Eldredge & Clark
201
15
—
—
—
—
Sidley Austin
—
—
—
$15,594
3
3
Nixon Peabody
—
—
—
$12,961
6
6
60 • ZGuide
Bond Counsel
Number of
Issues
Municipal Bonds (continued)
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
—
—
—
$7,298
12
—
Ballard Spahr
—
—
—
$7,166
13
11
Sherman & Howard
—
—
—
$6,980
14
—
Underwriter’s Counsel
Number of
Issues
Foster Pepper
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
Fulbright & Jaworski
220
1
4
$7,440
7
8
Andrews Kurth
206
2
1
$6,396
9
9
Kutak Rock
202
3
5
$8,358
5
7
McCall, Parkhurst & Horton
167
4
7
—
—
—
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
148
5
2
$14,505
4
3
Hawkins Delafield & Wood
143
6
3
$19,152
2
1
Greenberg Traurig
113
7
8
$6,247
10
—
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth
95
8
14
$7,342
8
10
Ballard Spahr
94
9
12
$5,594
13
12
Chapman and Cutler
88
10
9
—
—
—
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
88
10
9
$5,739
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone
87
12
13
Nixon Peabody
86
13
6
$19,578
1
2
Peck, Shaffer & Williams
79
14
15
—
—
—
—
12
11
—
—
Vinson & Elkins
77
15
11
—
—
—
Sidley Austin
—
—
—
$14,844
3
4
Winston & Strawn
—
—
—
$7,948
6
6
Pietrantoni Mendéz & Alvarez
—
—
—
$5,977
11
13
King & Spalding
—
—
—
$4,397
14
—
Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson
—
—
—
$4,390
15
—
Source: Thomson Reuters
ZGuide • 61
The Corporate Scorecard
Firm
Number of
Financings
Project Finance
Rank by
Number of
Financings
2011 2010
Value of
Financings
(in millions)
Rank by
Value of
Financings
2011 2010
Allen & Overy (U.K.)
61
1
1
$19,765
3
2
Clifford Chance (U.K.)
57
2
6
$16,685
4
5
Norton Rose (U.K.)
56
3
2
$7,270
10
13
Garrigues (Spain)
47
4
3
$6,170
11
15
Latham & Watkins
40
5
4
$9,936
9
1
Linklaters (U.K.)
38
6
5
$23,169
2
11
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
38
6
8
$10,301
7
9
White & Case
35
8
12
$10,963
6
4
Allens Arthur Robinson (Australia)
28
9
7
$6,111
12
8
Luthra & Luthra (India)
26
10
—
$23,291
1
7
Ashurst (U.K.)
25
11
10
—
—
—
Freehills (Australia)
24
12
11
—
—
—
Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira (Spain)
23
13
14
$5,389
16
—
DLA Piper (U.S. & U.K.)
23
13
17
$4,463
19
19
Shearman & Sterling
23
13
16
$5,291
18
14
Jones Day
20
16
15
—
—
—
SJ Law Advocates & Solicitors (India)
20
16
—
$6,038
13
—
Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff
& Co (India)
18
18
19
$9,944
8
6
Hogan Lovells (U.S. & U.K.)
18
18
—
—
—
—
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo (Spain)
17
20
20
—
—
—
Taiwan Commercial Law Offices (Taiwan)
—
—
—
$12,831
5
—
India Law Services (India)
—
—
9
$5,641
14
3
Herbert Smith (U.K.)
—
—
—
$5,534
15
—
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (U.K.)
—
—
—
$5,368
17
—
Baker & McKenzie
—
—
—
$4,306
20
—
Source: Dealogic
62 • ZGuide
Issuer’s Counsel
Venable
Number of
Issues
REIT Equities
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
21
1
1
$2,557
1
1
8
2
—
$1,196
5
—
Latham & Watkins
8
2
2
—
—
4
Ballard Spahr
7
4
4
$1,344
3
—
Hunton & Williams
Hogan Lovells
5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
$2,389
2
3
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
—
—
4
$1,242
4
—
Underwriter’s Counsel
Number of
Issues
6
K&L Gates
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Sidley Austin
20
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
14
2
4
$5,651
2
2
9
3
3
$1,362
5
—
Hunton & Williams
1
1
Proceeds
(in millions)
$6,525
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
1
1
Clifford Chance
8
4
2
$1,515
4
3
DLA Piper
8
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
$2,428
3
—
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
Source: Thomson Reuters
Issuer’s Counsel
Latham & Watkins
Number of
Issues
REIT Debt
11
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
1
2
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
$3,329
1
—
Hogan Lovells
3
2
—
—
—
—
Baker & Daniels
2
3
1
$3,138
2
1
Jones Day
2
3
—
$597
5
—
Morrison & Foerster
2
3
—
—
—
—
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
2
3
2
—
—
3
2
3
2
—
—
—
Mayer Brown
—
—
2
$1,097
3
2
K&L Gates
—
—
—
$985
4
—
Underwriter’s Counsel
Number of
Issues
Sullivan & Worcester
Rank by
Number of
Issues
2011 2010
Proceeds
(in millions)
Rank
by
Proceeds
2011 2010
Sidley Austin
12
1
1
$5,377
1
1
Hogan Lovells
5
2
—
$1,297
2
—
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
3
3
2
$1,119
3
2
Clifford Chance
2
4
—
—
—
5
Goodwin Procter
2
4
—
$865
5
—
—
—
3
$1,097
4
3
Shearman & Sterling
Source: Thomson Reuters
ZGuide • 63
The Corporate Scorecard
Largest Bankruptcies
Assets
Company
(in millions)
Description
Jurisdiction
Debtor’s Counsel
Creditor’s Committee
and Other Counsel*
$18,886
Ambac
Financial
Group, Inc.
Banking /
Finance
SDNY
$8,353
Corus
Bankshares,
Inc.
Banking /
Finance
ILL Kirkland & Ellis
Northern
District
$7,451
FirstFed
Banking /
Financial Corp Finance
CA Central
District
Landau, Gottfried
n/a
& Berger; Manatt,
Phelps & Phillips; Rus,
Miliband & Smith
$7,256
R&G Financial Banking /
Corporation
Finance
Puerto
Rico
Patton Boggs;
Pietrantoni Mendéz
& Alvarez; SanchezMedina, Gonzalez,
Quesada, Lage,
Crespo, Gomez &
Machado
n/a
$3,827
Anthracite
Capital, Inc.
Banking /
Finance
SDNY
Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom
Togut, Segal &
Segal, Trustee's
Counsel
$3,777
AMCORE
Financial, Inc.
Banking /
Finance
ILL Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Northern Meagher & Flom
District
n/a
$3,436
Midwest Banc Banking /
Holdings, Inc. Finance
ILL Hinshaw &
Northern Culbertson
District
Freeborn & Peters
$3,318
TierOne
Corporation
NE
Woods & Aitken
BuckleySandler,
Trustee's Counsel
$2,827
The Great
Food,
Atlantic &
Beverage
Pacific Tea
and Tobacco
Company, Inc.
SDNY
Kirkland & Ellis
Lowenstein
Sandler; Milbank,
Tweed, Hadley
& McCloy
$1,694
Community
Bancorp LLC
NV
Santoro, Driggs,
Walch, Kearney,
Holley & Thompson
Sullivan Hill Lewin
Rez & Engel,
Trustee's Counsel
Banking /
Finance
Banking /
Finance
Dewey & LeBoeuf;
Togut, Segal & Segal
* Firms listed are Creditor's Committee Counsel unless noted otherwise.
Source: BankruptcyData.com / American Lawyer Research 64 • ZGuide
Morrison & Foerster
Kilpatrick Townsend
& Stockton; Neal,
Gerber & Eisenberg
Largest Emergences (continued on next page)
Assets
(in millions)
Company
Description
Jurisdiction
Debtor’s Counsel
Creditor’s Committee
and Other Counsel*
$39,300
Chrysler LLC
Automotive
SDNY
Dykema Gossett;
Freshfields
Bruckhaus
Deringer; Jones
Day; Schulte Roth
& Zabel; Togut,
Segal & Segal
Kramer Levin
Naftalis & Frankel;
Pachulski Stang
Ziehl & Jones;
Stutzman,
Bromberg,
Esserman &
Plifka; Susman
Godfrey. Cahill
Gordon & Reindel,
Independent Board
of Managers.
$29,557
General Growth Real Estate
Properties, Inc.
SDNY
Baker & Daniels;
Bracewell &
Giuliani; Calvo &
Clark; Jenner &
Block; Kirkland &
Ellis; Silverstein &
Pomerantz; Weil,
Gotshal & Manges
Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld;
Halperin Battaglia
Raicht. Hughes
Hubbard & Reed,
Examiner Counsel.
Saul Ewing, Equity
Security Holders
Committee Counsel.
$27,392
Lyondell
Chemical
Company
Chemical
SDNY
Cadwalader,
Wickersham &
Taft; Nilan Johnson
Lewis
Brown Rudnick.
Davidoff Malito &
Hutcher, Examiner
Counsel.
$18,829
American
Home
Mortgage
Investment
Corp.
Banking /
Finance
DEL
Adorno & Yoss;
Allen & Overy;
Cadwalader,
Wickersham &
Taft; Codilis &
Associates; Law
Offices of Daniel
C. Consuegra;
Muldoon Murphy
& Aguggia; Neil
A. Weinrib &
Associates; Orlans
Associates; Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart
& Sullivan; Samuel
I. White; Weltman,
Weinberg &
Reis Co.; Young
Conaway Stargatt
& Taylor
Bifferato Gentilotti;
Blank Rome;
Cozen O'Connor;
Ferry, Joseph &
Pearce; Hahn &
Hessen; Hennigan,
Bennett & Dorman;
Law Offices of
Joseph J. Bodnar.
Gilbert Oshinsky;
Zuckerman
Spaeder, Committee
of Borrowers.
$12,891
Fremont
General
Corporation
Banking /
Finance
CA - Central Epstein Becker
District
& Green; Patton
Boggs; Stutman,
Treister & Glatt;
Willenken Wilson
Loh & Lieb
Bocarsly Emden
Cowan Esmail &
Arndt; Klee, Tuchin,
Bogdanoff & Stern.
Weiland, Golden,
Smiley, Wang Ekvall
& Strok, Equity
Security Holders
Committee Counsel.
$11,881
R.H. Donnelley Publishing
Corporation
DEL
Cozen O'Connor;
Ropes & Gray
Sidley Austin;
Young Conaway
Stargatt & Taylor
* Firms listed are Creditor's Committee Counsel unless noted otherwise.
Source: BankruptcyData.com / American Lawyer Research ZGuide • 65
The Corporate Scorecard
Largest Emergences (continued from previous page)
Assets
Company
(in millions)
Description
Jurisdiction
Debtor’s Counsel
Creditor’s Committee
and Other Counsel*
$8,072
AbitibiBowater Paper
DEL
Inc.
Manufacturing
Jones Day; Paul,
Paul, Hastings,
Weiss, Rifkind,
Janofsky & Walker
Wharton &
Garrison; Togut,
Segal & Segal;
Troutman Sanders;
Young Conaway
Stargatt & Taylor
$7,387
Smurfit-Stone
Container
Corporation
Packaging
DEL
Manufacturing
Armstrong
Teasdale; Butzel
Long Tighe Patton;
Sidley Austin; State
Tax Solutions;
Winston & Strawn;
Young Conaway
Stargatt & Taylor
Bennett Jones;
Kramer Levin
Naftalis & Frankel;
Pachulski Stang
Ziehl & Jones
$7,133
Extended Stay
Inc.
Hospitality
SDNY
Covington &
Burling; Stutman,
Treister & Glatt;
Weil, Gotshal &
Manges
Hahn & Hessen
$5,248
Visteon
Corporation
Automotive
DEL
Alston & Bird;
Crowell & Moring;
Dickinson Wright;
Hammonds;
Kirkland & Ellis;
Pachulski Stang
Ziehl & Jones;
Plews Shadley
Racher & Braun
Ashby & Geddes;
Brown Rudnick
* Firms listed are Creditor's Committee Counsel unless noted otherwise.
Source: BankruptcyData.com / American Lawyer Research
66 • ZGuide
Notes
ZGuide • 67
Law Firm Index
A
Adams and Reese, 22, 32
Addleshaw Goddard, 50
Adorno & Yoss, 65
Ahlers & Cooney, 60
Akerman Senterfitt, 20, 31
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, 6, 25, 44, 55, 65
Allen & Overy, 44, 59, 60, 62, 65
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, 18, 27
Allens Arthur Robinson, 48, 62
Alston & Bird, 10, 28, 48, 54, 55, 66
Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co, 62
Andrews Kurth, 10, 26, 56, 57, 61
Arent Fox, 14, 28
Armstrong Teasdale, 20, 32, 66
Arnold & Porter, 10, 27, 48
Ashby & Geddes, 66
Ashurst, 48, 62
B
Baker & Daniels, 20, 31, 63, 65
Baker & Hostetler, 14, 30
Baker & McKenzie, 10, 32, 46, 62
Baker Botts, 8, 26, 44, 54, 55, 56, 59
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, 22, 33
Ballard Spahr, 20, 30, 61, 63
Barnes & Thornburg, 16, 27
Bennett Jones, 66
Berwin Leighton Paisner, 50
Bifferato Gentilotti, 65
Bingham McCutchen, 6, 26, 44, 59, 60
Bird & Bird, 50
Blake, Cassels & Graydon, 54
Blank Rome, 16, 29, 65
Bocarsly Emden Cowan Esmail & Arndt, 65
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, 4, 24
Bracewell & Giuliani, 12, 29, 65
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, 18, 28
Brown Rudnick, 8, 25, 65, 66
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, 16, 28
68 • ZGuide
Bryan Cave, 16, 32, 50
Buchalter Nemer, 18, 28
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, 18, 31
BuckleySandler, 64
Burr & Forman, 22, 32
Butzel Long Tighe Patton, 66
C
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, 4, 27, 42, 59, 60, 65
Cahill Gordon & Reindel, 4, 24, 59, 65
Calvo & Clark, 65
Carlton Fields, 16, 29
Chadbourne & Parke, 8, 28
Chapman and Cutler, 12, 26, 60, 61
Choate Hall & Stewart, 8, 24
Clayton Utz, 48
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, 4, 25, 42, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
Clifford Chance, 44, 55, 58, 60, 62, 63
CMS Cameron McKenna, 50
Codilis & Associates, 65
Commerce & Finance Law Offices, 57
Conyers Dill & Pearman, 57
Cooley, 8, 26, 46, 56, 57
Covington & Burling, 10, 27, 46, 66
Cozen O'Connor, 18, 32, 65
Cravath, Swaine & Moore, 4, 24, 42, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59
Crowell & Moring, 12, 30, 66
Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira, 62
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, 8, 32
D
Davidoff Malito & Hutcher, 65
Davis Polk & Wardwell, 4, 24, 42, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59
Davis Wright Tremaine, 20, 30
Day Pitney, 18, 30
Debevoise & Plimpton, 4, 25, 44, 54, 55
Dechert, 6, 25, 42, 55
Dewey & LeBoeuf, 6, 26, 44, 54, 58, 59, 64
Dickinson Wright, 22, 32, 66
Dickstein Shapiro, 12, 28
Dinsmore & Shohl, 22, 33
DLA Piper, 10, 32, 46, 48, 56, 62, 63
Dorsey & Whitney, 18, 31, 60
Dow Lohnes, 14, 30
Drinker Biddle & Reath, 18, 31
Duane Morris, 14, 28, 50
Dykema Gossett, 18, 31, 65
E
Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, 16, 33, 60
Epstein Becker & Green, 18, 33, 65
Eversheds, 48
ZGuide • 69
Law Firm Index
F
Faegre & Benson, 20, 30, 56
Fangda Partners, 57
Fenwick & West, 10, 27
Ferry, Joseph & Pearce, 65
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, 10, 27, 46
Fish & Richardson, 6, 24, 46
Fisher & Phillips, 22, 31
Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, 14, 30
Foley & Lardner, 12, 28, 48
Foley Hoag, 12, 28
Foster Pepper, 61
Fox Rothschild, 18, 32
Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen and Loewy, 8, 31
Freeborn & Peters, 64
Freehills, 50, 62
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, 42, 54, 62, 65
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, 60
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, 6, 25, 46, 54, 55, 56, 63
Frost Brown Todd, 22, 33
Fulbright & Jaworski, 14, 27, 48, 60, 61
G
Gardere Wynne Sewell, 14, 27
Garrigues, 48, 62
Gibbons, 16, 31
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, 4, 24, 42, 54
Gilbert Oshinsky, 65
Gilmore & Bell, 60
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, 62
Goodwin Procter, 8, 24, 46, 56, 57, 63
Gordon & Rees, 16, 33
Goulston & Storrs, 20, 29
GrayRobinson, 22, 31
Greenberg Traurig, 8, 27, 46, 54, 55, 59, 61
H
Hahn & Hessen, 65, 66
Haiwen & Partners, 57
Halperin Battaglia Raicht, 65
Hammonds, 66
Han Kun Law Offices, 57
Hawkins Delafield & Wood, 60, 61
Haynes and Boone, 16, 30
Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman, 65
Herbert Smith, 44, 55, 62
Herrick, Feinstein, 12, 29
Hinshaw & Culbertson, 20, 33, 64
Hodgson Russ, 22, 33
Hogan & Hartson, 46
Hogan Lovells, 10, 29, 62, 63
Holland & Hart, 22, 31
Holland & Knight, 14, 29, 50
Holme Roberts & Owen, 22, 33
70 • ZGuide
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn, 16, 26
Howrey, 18, 33, 48
Hughes Hubbard & Reed, 6, 26, 65
Hunton & Williams, 14, 29, 48, 59, 63
Husch Blackwell, 18, 31
I
Ice Miller, 18, 28
India Law Services, 62
Irell & Manella, 4, 24
J
Jackson Lewis, 20, 32
Jackson Walker, 16, 29
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, 6, 25
Jenner & Block, 8, 25, 46, 56, 65
Jones Day, 14, 30, 50, 54, 55, 62, 63, 65, 66
Jun He Law Offices, 57
K
K&L Gates, 12, 29, 48, 56, 60, 63
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, 6, 27
Katten Muchin Rosenman, 10, 26, 46
Kaye Scholer, 6, 25, 44, 60
Kelley Drye & Warren, 12, 31
Kenyon & Kenyon, 12, 30
Kilpatrick Stockton, 16, 29
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, 64
King & Spalding, 6, 26, 44, 61
Kirkland & Ellis, 4, 24, 42, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 66
Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern, 65
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, 20, 32
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, 6, 25, 65, 66
Kutak Rock, 22, 32, 60, 61
L
Landau, Gottfried & Berger, 64
Latham & Watkins, 6, 24, 42, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63
Lathrop & Gage, 22, 33
Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, 65
Law Offices of Joseph J. Bodnar, 65
Lewis and Roca, 22, 32
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, 20, 33
Linklaters, 44, 54, 55, 58, 60, 62
Littler Mendelson, 20, 32
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, 12, 27, 48
Loeb & Loeb, 8, 26
Lovells, 48
Lowenstein Sandler, 10, 26, 64
Loyens & Loeff, 57
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 18, 28
Luthra & Luthra, 62
ZGuide • 71
Law Firm Index
M
Mallesons Stephen Jaques, 46
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, 10, 28, 64
Maples and Calder, 57
Mayer Brown, 10, 30, 48, 54, 58, 59, 63
McCall, Parkhurst & Horton, 60, 61
McCarter & English, 18, 31
McDermott Will & Emery, 8, 25, 46
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, 14, 33
McGuireWoods, 14, 31, 48, 59
McKenna Long & Aldridge, 12, 30
Michael Best & Friedrich, 22, 31
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 4, 24, 42, 62, 64
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, 22, 33, 61
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, 12, 28
Moore & Van Allen, 14, 28
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 8, 27, 46, 58
Morrison & Foerster, 8, 27, 46, 63, 64
Muldoon Murphy & Aguggia, 65
Munger, Tolles & Olson, 10, 24
N
Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, 61
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, 64
Neil A. Weinrib & Associates, 65
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, 20, 30
Nilan Johnson Lewis, 65
Nixon Peabody, 18, 30, 50, 60, 61
Norton Rose, 50, 62
O
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 22, 33
O'Melveny & Myers, 6, 26, 44, 55
Orlans Associates, 65
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, 8, 27, 44, 60, 61
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, 54, 56
P
Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, 65, 66
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, 6, 25
Patton Boggs, 12, 29, 64, 65
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, 6, 25, 44, 66
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, 4, 24, 42, 54, 55, 66
Peck, Shaffer & Williams, 60, 61
Pepper Hamilton, 16, 29
Perkins Coie, 12, 29, 48
Pietrantoni Mendéz & Alvarez, 61, 64
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, 10, 26, 48, 56
Pinsent Masons, 50
Plews Shadley Racher & Braun, 66
Polsinelli Shughart, 18, 32
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, 20, 32
Proskauer Rose, 6, 26, 44
72 • ZGuide
Q
Quarles & Brady, 22, 33, 60
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, 4, 24, 42, 65
R
Reed Smith, 10, 28, 48
Richards, Layton & Finger, 55
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, 14, 29
Robinson & Cole, 20, 33
Ropes & Gray, 8, 26, 44, 54, 55, 56, 65
Rus, Miliband & Smith, 64
S
Salans, 50
Samuel I. White, 65
Sanchez-Medina, Gonzalez, Quesada, Lage, Crespo,
Gomez & Machado, 64
Santoro, Driggs, Walch, Kearney, Holley & Thompson, 64
Saul Ewing, 20, 31, 65
Schiff Hardin, 14, 27
Schulte Roth & Zabel, 4, 25, 42, 55, 65
Sedgwick, 18, 33
Seyfarth Shaw, 16, 30, 50
Shearman & Sterling, 6, 27, 44, 54, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63
Shepherd and Wedderburn, 60
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, 10, 27, 46
Sherman & Howard, 61
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, 10, 29
Sidley Austin, 8, 26, 44, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66
Sills Cummis & Gross, 14, 29
Silverstein & Pomerantz, 65
Simmons & Simmons, 50
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, 4, 24, 42, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
SJ Law Advocates & Solicitors, 62
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, 4, 24, 42, 54, 55, 56,
57, 58, 59, 63, 64
Slaughter and May, 42, 54
Snell & Wilmer, 14, 29
SNR Denton, 14, 29
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, 50, 59, 60
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, 16, 32, 50, 60, 61
State Tax Solutions, 66
Steptoe & Johnson, 12, 28
Stevens & Lee, 12, 25
Stikeman Elliott, 54, 56
Stinson Morrison Hecker, 20, 30
Stoel Rives, 20, 31
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, 61
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, 10, 26
Stutman, Treister & Glatt, 65, 66
Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka, 65
Sullivan & Cromwell, 4, 24, 42, 54, 56, 58
Sullivan & Worcester, 16, 30, 63
Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel, 64
ZGuide • 73
Law Firm Index
Susman Godfrey, 65
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, 12, 27
T
Taiwan Commercial Law Offices, 62
Thompson & Knight, 12, 28
Thompson Coburn, 20, 30
Thompson Hine, 20, 32
Tods Murray, 60
Togut, Segal & Segal, 64, 65, 66
Townsend and Townsend and Crew, 16, 31
Troutman Sanders, 16, 31, 50, 66
V
Vedder Price, 16, 26
Venable, 14, 28, 50, 63
Vinson & Elkins, 8, 25, 46, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, 22, 33
W
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 4, 24, 42, 54, 55, 57
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, 4, 25, 42, 54, 55, 58, 59, 65, 66
Weiland, Golden, Smiley, Wang Ekvall & Strok, 65
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., 65
White & Case, 6, 30, 44, 54, 58, 59, 62
Wiley Rein, 12, 25
Willenken Wilson Loh & Lieb, 65
Williams & Connolly, 10, 24
Williams Mullen, 22, 33
Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 4, 25, 42, 55
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, 8, 25, 46, 56
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, 14, 32, 50
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 6, 27, 44, 56
Winstead, 16, 28
Winston & Strawn, 8, 26, 46, 61, 66
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, 18, 29
Woods & Aitken, 64
Y
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, 65, 66
Z
Zuckerman Spaeder, 65
74 • 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
•P
ositioning Strategies and Branding
Programs
•C
lient Service, Satisfaction, and
Teaming Programs
•M
arketing Organizational Models
and Assessments
LEADERSHIP ROUNDTABLES
•Z
G Leadership Roundtable for Law
Firm Chairs and Managing Partners
• ZG Leadership Roundtable for
Chief Marketing Officers
• ZG Leadership Roundtable for
Chief Operating Officers
ZGuide • 75
DE
DE
UIDE
Ron Beard
beard @consultzg.com
t: 949•360•0122
m: 949•887•3296
Mozhgan Mizban
[email protected]
t: 415•868•0100
m: 415•279•4584
Norm Rubenstein
[email protected]
t: 202•483•7089
m: 202•256•2668
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 2011 Pocket Guide to Leading Law Firms