The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms" Forum

[Julio_El_Chavo]

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... chasm.html

interesting explanation of why the top Vault firm partners (or however you rationally want to rank them) make a shitload of money, even compared to lower-ranked Vault firm partners.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

The quality of your work sucks at lower ranked Vault firms, at least when compared to the work you get at "top top" firms:

Based on the financial results we've reviewed, it seems that the best billing work goes disproportionately to the most profitable firms. For this discussion, assume that at the top-earning firms, roughly 60 percent of work falls into this high-billing category. That means that roughly $11.6 billion is divided among the top 23 [AmLaw 200] firms and the other 177 compete for the remaining $16.4 billion.

[Anonymous User]

Is there a list somewhere of the top 23 PPP firms?

[Omerta]

Why the fuck do you care?

Congratulations. You're all doing something that's overrated. You're basically members of a modern-day gold rush.

[nucky thompson]

@ anon - not sure why you're anon, also not sure why you did not google for yourself. http://www.law.com/special/professional ... 0_ppp.html

[Machine Spirit]

@ anon - not sure why you're anon, also not sure why you did not google for yourself. http://www.law.com/special/professional ... 0_ppp.html

Impressive googling skills...linking a 2002 chart like that. Here's a hint...notice how Quinn Emmanuel isn't on there? That's probably a sign that it's old as hell.

Here ya go though, from 2011, a list of the top 100:

http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTA ... slreturn=1

[Anonymous User]

@ anon - not sure why you're anon, also not sure why you did not google for yourself. http://www.law.com/special/professional ... 0_ppp.html

that is very old.
here is a new one: http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTA ... slreturn=1

[xcountryjunkie]

Those lists are bad. They are top PPP among AmLaw 100 firms. Since AmLaw 100 firms are ranked by total revenue that means only the 100 highest grossing firms are eligible. Therefore, the uber-high grossing boutiques/smaller BigLaw firms do not make this list. Firms from just the AmLaw 101-125 that should have made any list of top PPP: Cahill Gordon ($2.535M), Irell ($2.490M), Kasowitz ($2.080M).*

*Those figures are 2010 PPP, I don't have 2011, but I bet they only went up.

[Anonymous User]

@ anon - not sure why you're anon, also not sure why you did not google for yourself. http://www.law.com/special/professional ... 0_ppp.html

Impressive googling skills...linking a 2002 chart like that. Here's a hint...notice how Quinn Emmanuel isn't on there? That's probably a sign that it's old as hell.

Here ya go though, from 2011, a list of the top 100:

http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTA ... slreturn=1

when the heck did quinn become a firm with 2nd highest PPP?!?!

[Julio_El_Chavo]

Why the fuck do you care?

Congratulations. You're all doing something that's overrated. You're basically members of a modern-day gold rush.

I care because even in a gold rush there are a few people who get rich.

Also, I don't like your attitude. Maybe you should go get laid sometime.

[Borhas]

what do these firms count as profit?

Do they subtract base salaries for partners, associate salaries+bonuses, staff salaries, and overhead?

cause 4m PPP doesn't seem all that much for some reason

[Julio_El_Chavo]

what do these firms count as profit?

Do they subtract base salaries for partners, associate salaries+bonuses, staff salaries, and overhead?

cause 4m PPP doesn't seem all that much for some reason

PPP calculations are notoriously shady (some Law.com article made this point a while ago. I'm too lazy to find it). But generally, I think PPP is what's leftover after salaries for all non-equity employees are paid, including non-equity partners, associates, staff, etc. Likewise, overhead is paid and deducted before getting to the PPP number.

[imchuckbass58]

what do these firms count as profit?

Do they subtract base salaries for partners, associate salaries+bonuses, staff salaries, and overhead?

cause 4m PPP doesn't seem all that much for some reason

Yes, they subtract associate salaries, staff salaries, rent, overhead, and any other expenses.

Also there is no such thing as salaries for partners, at least if you're talking equity partners. They just split the profits when all the expenses are paid. So theoretically if there were no profits, they would get paid nothing.

[bk1]

Maybe you should go get laid sometime.

What a novel and inventive retort.

[imchuckbass58]

what do these firms count as profit?

Do they subtract base salaries for partners, associate salaries+bonuses, staff salaries, and overhead?

cause 4m PPP doesn't seem all that much for some reason

PPP calculations are notoriously shady (some Law.com article made this point a while ago. I'm too lazy to find it). But generally, I think PPP is what's leftover after salaries for all non-equity employees are paid, including non-equity partners, associates, staff, etc. Likewise, overhead is paid and deducted before getting to the PPP number.

Most of the shadiness is not so much in calculating the overall profit pie, but how many people you count as "partners." Do you count non-equity partners? What about partners who technically have a small sliver of equity, but they derive most of their comp from fixed salaries? If you get both a salary and some sort of profit sharing, what percentage of your comp must come from profit sharing before you're termed a partner for the purposes of the calculation?

This is pretty straightforward at single-tier, full equity firms (Cravath, Davis Polk, Debevoise, etc.) where everyone who's a partner derives all their income from equity and none from salary, but gets complicated when you have two-tier (or even three-tier) partnerships - Kirkland, Quinn, Gibson Dunn, Weil, etc.

[c3pO4]

Why the fuck do you care?

Congratulations. You're all doing something that's overrated. You're basically members of a modern-day gold rush.

I care because even in a gold rush there are a few people who get rich.

Also, I don't like your attitude. Maybe you should go get laid sometime.

nobody is "Getting rich" by becoming a lawyer. a common misconception about this industry. you wanna get rich, you should become an F500 CEO or banker of some sort. but you probably won't unless you were born rich already. the american dream doesn't exist anymore.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

Maybe you should go get laid sometime.

What a novel and inventive retort.

Nice redundancy.

[rinkrat19]

Maybe you should go get laid sometime.

What a novel and inventive retort.

Nice redundancy.

One imples "new" and the other implies "creative." Not redundant.

Nice vocab skills.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

Maybe you should go get laid sometime.

What a novel and inventive retort.

Nice redundancy.

One imples "new" and the other implies "creative." Not redundant.

Nice vocab skills.

In certain contexts, like IP law, "inventive" implies novelty.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

Maybe you should go get laid sometime.

What a novel and inventive retort.

Nice redundancy.

One imples "new" and the other implies "creative." Not redundant.

Nice vocab skills.

--LinkRemoved--

Creativity is the ability to create a work that is both novel and useful.

[Anonymous User]

Why the fuck do you care?

Congratulations. You're all doing something that's overrated. You're basically members of a modern-day gold rush.

I care because even in a gold rush there are a few people who get rich.

Also, I don't like your attitude. Maybe you should go get laid sometime.

nobody is "Getting rich" by becoming a lawyer. a common misconception about this industry. you wanna get rich, you should become an F500 CEO or banker of some sort. but you probably won't unless you were born rich already. the american dream doesn't exist anymore.

What about the bros who graduated from my law school and are partners at PE firms and investment funds, and who donate millions to the school to get buildings and other parts of the law school named after them? Sure, it's a long shot, but so is becoming a F500 CEO for people in B-School.

[thederangedwang]

ur all douchebags..there...happy y'all?

[ToTransferOrNot]

Why the fuck do you care?

Congratulations. You're all doing something that's overrated. You're basically members of a modern-day gold rush.

I care because even in a gold rush there are a few people who get rich.

Also, I don't like your attitude. Maybe you should go get laid sometime.

nobody is "Getting rich" by becoming a lawyer. a common misconception about this industry. you wanna get rich, you should become an F500 CEO or banker of some sort. but you probably won't unless you were born rich already. the american dream doesn't exist anymore.

You are absolutely fucking detached from reality if you believe that $1mm+ per year isn't "rich". There are obviously "richer" people, but jesus fucking christ.

[c3pO4]

You are absolutely fucking detached from reality if you believe that $1mm+ per year isn't "rich". There are obviously "richer" people, but jesus fucking christ.

I don't think 1mm/year is rich, and I don't think that's detached from reality.

The reality is by the time you hit that number, you've killed yourself in terms of health and family life. Also, you've spent a good amount of time paying of law school debt. Also, you have to keep working insanely hard to keep that 1MM and probably won't have much to live off in retirement. It's not really rich as most people think of it.

[Omerta]

Just lol at the lawlemmings, jump right into the ocean. They have their heads in the sand about their odds of employment, let alone making partner at a top firm. I, on the other hand, am different.

/
/
/



On the bright side op, if this whole law thing doesn't work out, I'm sure Camel would jump at the opportunity to have you as their mascot.