2012 Financial Metrics of Am Law 100.

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.

Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: 2012 Financial Metrics of Am Law 100.

Postby imchuckbass58 » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:19 am

The point also is that insofar as PPP is supposed to indicate a firm's health, it's not actually a useful metric. Paul Weiss's PPP is over $3 million whereas DPW's is hovering around $2 million. But DPW's RPL is higher than Paul Weiss's.

What does this mean? It just means that Paul Weiss consolidates the same amount of money in fewer hands. That doesn't necessarily mean it's better off. DPW could just leverage to the hilt, and its PPP would go through the roof. Similarly, DPW could just de-equitize a bunch of service partners (which is effectively the model K&E operates on), and its PPP would come much closer to K&E. Neither move would necessarily make the firm more healthy, and both are arguably bad developments from an associate's perspective.

User avatar

Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: 2012 Financial Metrics of Am Law 100.

Postby birdlaw117 » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:22 am

Anonymous User wrote:
RVP11 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Yeah, PPP is hugely influenced by things like what you count as "partners" (there are nonequity partners at quinn and K&E, for example), and also by leverage (higher leverage = higher PPP, all else equal). But RPL is really hard to manipulate unless you're playing tricks with revenue recognition, which (1) is borderline unethical - see Dewey, and (2) can't be done over for years on end.

I don't see how it matters at K&E or Quinn. Neither of them counts non-equity partners in their PPP calculations (at least AMLAW doesn't), and even if it did, that would dramatically drop their PPP. I really don't see the relevance of this statement.

Having non-equity partners helps hide your true leverage ratio. And leverage is what gets you the high PPP.

From the firm's marketing materials, sure, but AMLAW calculates the leverage ratio by excluding non-equity partners. And they calculate PPP based on equity partners. And if they included non-equity partners in their calculation, having $3mm PPP and counting non-equity partners is pretty fucking impressive.

The point is that they can be highly leveraged to get a high PPP, but then market themselves as having a better leverage ratio so they don't look like they're playing games to get a high PPP.

User avatar

Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: 2012 Financial Metrics of Am Law 100.

Postby JusticeHarlan » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:30 am

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Julio_El_Chavo wrote:I can't believe Milbank is top 10 in PPP. What a god awful shitty place to work as an associate.

whats so bad about working at milbank? they seem to have great programs for mid-level associates.

and how the hell did quinn's gross revenue jump over 30%?

Anecdotal, of course: I've heard more horror stories about Milbank than any other firm. Partners habitually screaming at associates, dehumanizing them, etc. Partners are BY FAR the greediest of any firm in the US. It's really not even close. It's more like a collection of fiefdoms protecting their closely-guarded clients than a law firm.

I thought that was supposed to be Cadwalader's reputation? (Not that I know anything about Milbank, just that this descriptions sounds like what I've heard about CWT).

Anonymous User
Posts: 309446
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2012 Financial Metrics of Am Law 100.

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 01, 2012 1:47 pm

What's up with Mayer and Hunton's 10%+ RPL bump? The blurb said they both have lost lawyers over the last year. Is it a good thing the RPL is up or a bad thing they lost so many lawyers?

Return to “Legal Employment�

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.