2021 Am Law 100 Forum

[Anonymous User]

Can someone explain the math behind how both DPW and Kirkland have about $1M higher PPP than S&C, but their RPL is still behind S&C's?

Leverage. DPW is 5.27 associates per equity partner. Kirkland is 4.72. S&C is 3.81. Less partners sharing profits = more profits per partner.

Yeah..that’s what I thought. But what I can’t understand is how S&C can operate with much smaller number of associates per equity partner than that of DPW and Kirkland. Is it too simplistic to say this just means S&C associates are getting killed?

Hard to say but IIRC when looking at the M&A league tables S&C stood out as having lower volume of deals but average deal value was yuge. Can't remember the exact numbers but S&C's total deal value was pretty close to Latham's while having like 1/5th of the actual # of deals or something crazy like that.

So maybe it's because S&C does only a moderate amount of relatively huge deals which allows them to keep leverage slightly lower than peers that churn & burn through large amounts of deals.

Tbf though S&C's leverage is not *that* low, I would actually say that DPW and K&E just have leverage that trends a little higher is all. Compared to WLRK, S&C doesn't look lean at all.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone explain the math behind how both DPW and Kirkland have about $1M higher PPP than S&C, but their RPL is still behind S&C's?

Leverage. DPW is 5.27 associates per equity partner. Kirkland is 4.72. S&C is 3.81. Less partners sharing profits = more profits per partner.

Yeah..that’s what I thought. But what I can’t understand is how S&C can operate with much smaller number of associates per equity partner than that of DPW and Kirkland. Is it too simplistic to say this just means S&C associates are getting killed?

Hard to say but IIRC when looking at the M&A league tables S&C stood out as having lower volume of deals but average deal value was yuge. Can't remember the exact numbers but S&C's total deal value was pretty close to Latham's while having like 1/5th of the actual # of deals or something crazy like that.

So maybe it's because S&C does only a moderate amount of relatively huge deals which allows them to keep leverage slightly lower than peers that churn & burn through large amounts of deals.

Tbf though S&C's leverage is not *that* low, I would actually say that DPW and K&E just have leverage that trends a little higher is all. Compared to WLRK, S&C doesn't look lean at all.

Deal value ranking last year (in the US), top 4 firms (source: mergermarket)

Wachtell - 394,604 USDm - 70 deals
Latham - 359,246 USDm - 332 deals
Sullivan - 320,892 USDm - 120 deals
Kirkland - 295,517 USDm - 559 deals

[Anonymous User]

Can someone explain the math behind how both DPW and Kirkland have about $1M higher PPP than S&C, but their RPL is still behind S&C's?

Leverage. DPW is 5.27 associates per equity partner. Kirkland is 4.72. S&C is 3.81. Less partners sharing profits = more profits per partner.

Yeah..that’s what I thought. But what I can’t understand is how S&C can operate with much smaller number of associates per equity partner than that of DPW and Kirkland. Is it too simplistic to say this just means S&C associates are getting killed?

Hard to say but IIRC when looking at the M&A league tables S&C stood out as having lower volume of deals but average deal value was yuge. Can't remember the exact numbers but S&C's total deal value was pretty close to Latham's while having like 1/5th of the actual # of deals or something crazy like that.

So maybe it's because S&C does only a moderate amount of relatively huge deals which allows them to keep leverage slightly lower than peers that churn & burn through large amounts of deals.

Tbf though S&C's leverage is not *that* low, I would actually say that DPW and K&E just have leverage that trends a little higher is all. Compared to WLRK, S&C doesn't look lean at all.

Deal value ranking last year (in the US), top 4 firms (source: mergermarket)

Wachtell - 394,604 USDm - 70 deals
Latham - 359,246 USDm - 332 deals
Sullivan - 320,892 USDm - 120 deals
Kirkland - 295,517 USDm - 559 deals

Thought this was really interesting to see what the average size was and compare the scales, using Kirkland's average as a unit of measure since they have the smallest average. Really interesting that there's an order of magnitude separating firms in the top 4.

Wachtell — $ 5,637.2 M/deal — 10x Kirkland
Sullivan — $ 2,674.1 M/deal — 5x Kirkland
Latham — $ 1,082.1 M/deal — 2x Kirkland
Kirkland — $ 528.6 M/deal

[Anonymous User]

Can someone explain the math behind how both DPW and Kirkland have about $1M higher PPP than S&C, but their RPL is still behind S&C's?

Leverage. DPW is 5.27 associates per equity partner. Kirkland is 4.72. S&C is 3.81. Less partners sharing profits = more profits per partner.

Yeah..that’s what I thought. But what I can’t understand is how S&C can operate with much smaller number of associates per equity partner than that of DPW and Kirkland. Is it too simplistic to say this just means S&C associates are getting killed?

Hard to say but IIRC when looking at the M&A league tables S&C stood out as having lower volume of deals but average deal value was yuge. Can't remember the exact numbers but S&C's total deal value was pretty close to Latham's while having like 1/5th of the actual # of deals or something crazy like that.

So maybe it's because S&C does only a moderate amount of relatively huge deals which allows them to keep leverage slightly lower than peers that churn & burn through large amounts of deals.

Tbf though S&C's leverage is not *that* low, I would actually say that DPW and K&E just have leverage that trends a little higher is all. Compared to WLRK, S&C doesn't look lean at all.

Deal value ranking last year (in the US), top 4 firms (source: mergermarket)

Wachtell - 394,604 USDm - 70 deals
Latham - 359,246 USDm - 332 deals
Sullivan - 320,892 USDm - 120 deals
Kirkland - 295,517 USDm - 559 deals

Thought this was really interesting to see what the average size was and compare the scales, using Kirkland's average as a unit of measure since they have the smallest average. Really interesting that there's an order of magnitude separating firms in the top 4.

Wachtell — $ 5,637.2 M/deal — 10x Kirkland
Sullivan — $ 2,674.1 M/deal — 5x Kirkland
Latham — $ 1,082.1 M/deal — 2x Kirkland
Kirkland — $ 528.6 M/deal

I think LW and KE both have more presence in non-NY and non-NorCal market than most the other peer firms (probs more smaller deals than NY); or both handle more PE deals (deal volume can vary).

[ExpOriental]

Anyone at Barnes & Thornburg know what absolute clown is claiming to have billed 4,595 hours?

https://i.imgur.com/BjvXK1K.png

[publius365]

Anyone at Barnes & Thornburg know what absolute clown is claiming to have billed 4,595 hours?

https://i.imgur.com/BjvXK1K.png

He/she couldn't have made it an even 5,000? Or at least 4,600?! Sad.

[lolwutpar]

Anyone at Barnes & Thornburg know what absolute clown is claiming to have billed 4,595 hours?

https://i.imgur.com/BjvXK1K.png

lol billing over 12 hours every day. Seems legit.

[Sackboy]

Anyone at Barnes & Thornburg know what absolute clown is claiming to have billed 4,595 hours?

https://i.imgur.com/BjvXK1K.png

lol billing over 12 hours every day. Seems legit.

Yep, the top biller in AmLaw every year should be investigated by their state's ethics folks, because the top biller always has a fraudulently high number.

[publius365]

Anyone at Barnes & Thornburg know what absolute clown is claiming to have billed 4,595 hours?

https://i.imgur.com/BjvXK1K.png

lol billing over 12 hours every day. Seems legit.

Yep, the top biller in AmLaw every year should be investigated by their state's ethics folks, because the top biller always has a fraudulently high number.

Nahhh he's clearly just someone who uses his sleeping time efficiently to dream about and strategize on his client's matters.

[Anonymous User]

Some of those average rates are surprising. WSGR and Goodwin are a lot lower than I’d expect.

Fenwick is right in that range too. Cooley slightly above, and I can’t spot Gunderson anywhere (probably blind).

I work at one of these firms, and it’s not unusual for us to negotiate a premium on big M&A deals. So we can have low rates for venture clients (which are usually further discounted for general corporate work), and then have fees more in line with a top 20 firm on larger, more complex deals

[Anonymous User]

people attach so much of their self-worth to these things...

[Anonymous User]

Anyone at Barnes & Thornburg know what absolute clown is claiming to have billed 4,595 hours?

https://i.imgur.com/BjvXK1K.png

lol billing over 12 hours every day. Seems legit.

Why would a firm want to report one of its lawyers (allegedly) billed 4595?

[Anonymous User]

Can someone please explain why Covington's attorney credentials do not translate to nearly the same level of financial success as many of their peer firms? Is it just that they bill fewer hours/have lower rates, or are there other differences?

[Sackboy]

people attach so much of their self-worth to these things...

Brave anon post, but, yes, folks shouldn't view these numbers as anything more than how firms are performing in the industry. If your firm's PPP, RPL, etc. declines or increases, it's no reflection of your self-worth or really anything else.

[YA_Tittle]

Can someone please explain why Covington's attorney credentials do not translate to nearly the same level of financial success as many of their peer firms? Is it just that they bill fewer hours/have lower rates, or are there other differences?

They are the largest firm by headcount in DC I believe, and have a comparatively small NY office. DC notoriously attracts very well-credentialed attorneys to do interesting legal work, but it isn't usually very profitable work. Most of the highest value clients and deals come out of New York.

[CovidLurker]

Anyone at Barnes & Thornburg know what absolute clown is claiming to have billed 4,595 hours?

https://i.imgur.com/BjvXK1K.png

lol billing over 12 hours every day. Seems legit.

Yep, the top biller in AmLaw every year should be investigated by their state's ethics folks, because the top biller always has a fraudulently high number.

I think each year, firms should just fire anyone claiming to bill above 3000 hours.

Anyone claiming to bill 3000+ hours a year is claiming to bill 8.2 hours each day every day - weekends, holidays etc. There's only one of two possibilities for this to occur: you have a terribly managed firm that is either incapable of splitting work evenly or hiring additional associates or you have liars at your firm.

If it's the former, you're doing your associates a favor by pushing them out the door. If it's the latter - good.

Now something might happen to lead to 3000 billable hours. Maybe an absolutely absurd trial or significant amounts of travel that make racking up the hours easy happened that year. We can go ahead and do a post-firing investigation afterwards to see if the 3000+ billable was justifiable, and if so, we can re-hire them with backpay. This way, no harm no foul and you just gave a legitimately overworked attorney a much needed vacation.

But, the the standing policy should be fire first ask questions later.

[Definitely Not North]

Anyone at Barnes & Thornburg know what absolute clown is claiming to have billed 4,595 hours?

https://i.imgur.com/BjvXK1K.png

lol billing over 12 hours every day. Seems legit.

Hopes that dude’s pumped to spend a few years in prison after the feds kick his door in on a RICO wire fraud raid smh

[Anonymous User]

I was curious if anyone knew if doc review attorneys who are employed by a firm are counted against the total for RPL. I know some firms (mostly science/tech firms) with patent agents and scientists or whatever are able to beef up their RPL because those billable hours count towards the numerator but not the denominator.

But, what if a firm has doc review attorneys it bills out for pennies. Are these attorneys included in the denominator since they are attorneys of the firm?

The firm I’m at seems to have a lower RPL than peer firms and I’m wondering if it’s because of any problems at the firm or if it is at least partly because of the large number (I think 100+) of doc review attorneys the firm employs.

Obviously this doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, but I was curious while reviewing the metrics.

[Anonymous User]

Any hero want to post the AmLaw 200?

[AntipodeanPhil]

Anyone at Barnes & Thornburg know what absolute clown is claiming to have billed 4,595 hours?

https://i.imgur.com/BjvXK1K.png

lol billing over 12 hours every day. Seems legit.

Yep, the top biller in AmLaw every year should be investigated by their state's ethics folks, because the top biller always has a fraudulently high number.

I think each year, firms should just fire anyone claiming to bill above 3000 hours.

Anyone claiming to bill 3000+ hours a year is claiming to bill 8.2 hours each day every day - weekends, holidays etc. There's only one of two possibilities for this to occur: you have a terribly managed firm that is either incapable of splitting work evenly or hiring additional associates or you have liars at your firm.

If it's the former, you're doing your associates a favor by pushing them out the door. If it's the latter - good.

Now something might happen to lead to 3000 billable hours. Maybe an absolutely absurd trial or significant amounts of travel that make racking up the hours easy happened that year. We can go ahead and do a post-firing investigation afterwards to see if the 3000+ billable was justifiable, and if so, we can re-hire them with backpay. This way, no harm no foul and you just gave a legitimately overworked attorney a much needed vacation.

But, the the standing policy should be fire first ask questions later.

I billed 1520 hours in the first 6 months of this financial year at my firm and, if anything, I undercount my billed hours. I could see myself doing the same thing for another 6 months, though I obviously hope not to. The problem is that a lot of firms are seriously struggling to hire transactional associates in the current climate, so there is no easy way to fix the problem. I bet a lot of corporate/transactional associates on this forum are in the same or a similar position.

[CovidLurker]

Anyone at Barnes & Thornburg know what absolute clown is claiming to have billed 4,595 hours?

https://i.imgur.com/BjvXK1K.png

lol billing over 12 hours every day. Seems legit.

Yep, the top biller in AmLaw every year should be investigated by their state's ethics folks, because the top biller always has a fraudulently high number.

I think each year, firms should just fire anyone claiming to bill above 3000 hours.

Anyone claiming to bill 3000+ hours a year is claiming to bill 8.2 hours each day every day - weekends, holidays etc. There's only one of two possibilities for this to occur: you have a terribly managed firm that is either incapable of splitting work evenly or hiring additional associates or you have liars at your firm.

If it's the former, you're doing your associates a favor by pushing them out the door. If it's the latter - good.

Now something might happen to lead to 3000 billable hours. Maybe an absolutely absurd trial or significant amounts of travel that make racking up the hours easy happened that year. We can go ahead and do a post-firing investigation afterwards to see if the 3000+ billable was justifiable, and if so, we can re-hire them with backpay. This way, no harm no foul and you just gave a legitimately overworked attorney a much needed vacation.

But, the the standing policy should be fire first ask questions later.

I billed 1520 hours in the first 6 months of this financial year at my firm and, if anything, I undercount my billed hours. I could see myself doing the same thing for another 6 months, though I obviously hope not to. The problem is that a lot of firms are seriously struggling to hire transactional associates in the current climate, so there is no easy way to fix the problem. I bet a lot of corporate/transactional associates on this forum are in the same or a similar position.

I'm transactional attorney as well with the (not-serious) post about firing anyone with 3000+. I'm guessing you're capital markets? Agreed, every CapM associate I know is going to bill a legit 3000/year. It's absolutely insane and unsustainable.