PPP and Revenue for AmLaw 100 Firms Forum

[Posner]

...

[RVP11]

I'll just throw out my predictions:

RPL down by ~5% at most firms.

PPP up by ~5% at most firms.

[twistedwrister]

Don't know if PPP and RPL have been officially posted yet, but from autoadmit...

http://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_ ... forum_id=2

Firm Revenue PPP

Covington 583 (9.8%) 1.2 (-7.7%)

Kirkland 1.43 (2%) 2.5 (1%)

Debevoise 668 (-12%) 1.87 (-16%)

Paul Weiss 665 (-3.8%) 2.69 (2%)

Gibson Dunn 995 (4%) 1.91 (1.6%)

Sidley 1.49 (-9%) 1.46 (2%)

Wilmer Hale 941 (-1.5%) 1.16 (7%)

Latham 1.82 (-5.3%) 1.9 (5%)

ArnoldPorter 524 (2%) 1.01 (1%)

White and Case 1.31(-11%) 1.6 (.3%)

Shearman 801 (-8.6%) 1.7 (4.2%)

OMM 826.6 (-8.9%)1.47 (-4.2%)

Quinn 420 (-5%) 3.1 (-6%)

Morrison 884 (-3%) 1.14 (4%)

Mayer Brown 1.12 (-14%) 1.06 (-4%)

Paul Hastings 889 (-9.8%) 1.87 (-1.4%)

Willkie 549 (-5.8%) 2.0 (-5%)

MungerTolles 198 (-4.5%) 1.26 (-4.5%)

Orrick ? 1.36 (3%)

Goodwin 658 (-4%) 1.27 (3%)

dla piper 1.01 (-14%) 1.23 (-5%)

JennerBlock 367 (6%) 1.1 (33%)

Dewey 914 (-11.3%) 1.6 (3.4%)

VinsonElkins 562 (-4.8%) 1.27 (-3.1%)

Irell 253 (10%) 2.49 (27%)

Fulbright 642 (-7.5%) 813 (-5.2%)

MorganLewis 1.07 (-5%) 1.24 (-15%)

Bingham 850 (12%) 1.45 (2%)

FishRichardson 417 (4.7%) 1.34 (20%)

Dechert 713 (-12.6%) 1.96 (-8.6%)

Greenberg 1.17 (-2.9%) 1.31 (1.2%)

Cadwalader 456 (-9.8%) 2.41 (28%)

Cooley 507 (-8%) 1.17 (-11%)

Pillsbury 533 (-7.5%) 950K (-2.6%)

Sonnenschein 472.5 (0%) 780K (-12%)

Cahill 270 (9%) 2.5 (19%)

K&L Gates 1.03 (7.8%) 860K (.6%)

Steptoe 339 (-5%) 877K (-3%)

Reed Smith 942 (-3.8%) 1.00 (7%)

Bryan Cave 555 (10.4%) 623K (-5.5%)

Perkins Coie 433 (2.1%) 802K (-.3%)

PattonBoggs 332 (-4.7%) 840K (3.7%)

Schulte 397 (-5.5%) 2.13 (-7%)

Howrey 480 (-16.3%) 846K (-34.9%)

McGuire 509 (6.7%) 801K (6.2%)

BracewellGiuli 277 (1%) 950K (10.2%)

Dorsey Whitney 341.9 (-6.9%)614K (-7.1%)

Hughes Hubbard 277 (10%) 1.47 (9.7%)

WileyRein 200 (1%) 965K (1.6%)

Fenwick West 192 (-2%) 995K (0%)

[nealric]

They have been releasing the numbers firm by firm. I think they will have a full compilation in a month or so.

My firm still isn't out

[Renzo]

They have been releasing the numbers firm by firm. I think they will have a full compilation in a month or so.

My firm still isn't out

It seems like the firms that are up have been in a hurry to get the numbers out, those that are down have been trying to sneak them out quietly.

[Anonymous User]

Notice the different ways firms dealt with revenue and PPP -- to the extent 1Ls (and 2Ls who will do OCI in the fall) have choices, this data might be very helpful in ranking options.

[Posner]

...

[nealric]

It seems like the firms that are up have been in a hurry to get the numbers out, those that are down have been trying to sneak them out quietly.

I sure hope you are wrong.

[Doodsmack]

PPP isn't necessarily predictive of layoff/compensation decisions.

[Anonymous User]

It seems like the firms that are up have been in a hurry to get the numbers out, those that are down have been trying to sneak them out quietly.

I sure hope you are wrong.

More than the health of the firms, it also indicates the management style of the firms.

If you look, you will see three approaches:

1. Revenue dropped (or went up) and PPP dropped (or went up) proportionally
2. Revenue dropped (or went up slightly) and PPP went up considerably
3. Revenue dropped (or went up) and PPP went down in a greater proportion

There are some inferences that can be made off of these categories -- especially if you cross-reference these numbers with the numbers of associates let go.

[imchuckbass58]

More than the health of the firms, it also indicates the management style of the firms.

If you look, you will see three approaches:

1. Revenue dropped (or went up) and PPP dropped (or went up) proportionally
2. Revenue dropped (or went up slightly) and PPP went up considerably
3. Revenue dropped (or went up) and PPP went down in a greater proportion

There are some inferences that can be made off of these categories -- especially if you cross-reference these numbers with the numbers of associates let go.

I agree you can infer something from these statistics, but keep in mind there are other ways to explain these statistical moves. One of the fastest ways to increase PPP on a falling revenue base (besides laying off associates) is pushing out/de-equitizing partners. This happens, and it's usually not announced.

[Renzo]

More than the health of the firms, it also indicates the management style of the firms.

If you look, you will see three approaches:

1. Revenue dropped (or went up) and PPP dropped (or went up) proportionally
2. Revenue dropped (or went up slightly) and PPP went up considerably
3. Revenue dropped (or went up) and PPP went down in a greater proportion

There are some inferences that can be made off of these categories -- especially if you cross-reference these numbers with the numbers of associates let go.

I agree you can infer something from these statistics, but keep in mind there are other ways to explain these statistical moves. One of the fastest ways to increase PPP on a falling revenue base (besides laying off associates) is pushing out/de-equitizing partners. This happens, and it's usually not announced.

PPP and its relation to revenue are worth considering, but are not the be-all, end-all. Never forget that the whole business model depends on rainmaking partners; partners who expect to make truckloads of money. If the dumptruck full of cash doesn't arrive on time, they are going to take their book of business to another firm.

Yes, if revenue is down and profits are up, it was the blood of sacrificed associates that made it possible. However, a firm that doesn't offer the blood sacrifice to its rainmakers may not be able to bring in enough business to keep those associates who have been spared busy. In the end, the result is probably the same--layoffs.

[Posner]

...

[Posner]

...