Profits Per Partner at Elite Botiques? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have an idea? I know that Quinn Emmanuel and Boies Schiller both do alot of contingency fees similar to botiques like Susman and make $3+ million in PPP.

Does anyone know how much partners at places like Susman make? I'm assuming that if they can give out $45-100k in bonuses to associates that they must be doing very well for themselves.

Thanks

[BeenDidThat]

Anyone have an idea? I know that Quinn Emmanuel and Boies Schiller both do alot of contingency fees similar to botiques like Susman and make $3+ million in PPP.

Does anyone know how much partners at places like Susman make? I'm assuming that if they can give out $45-100k in bonuses to associates that they must be doing very well for themselves.

Thanks

First, no one will know other than the partners, some tax people for the firms, and the IRS. They aren't telling.

Second, this inquiry is fucking hilarious.

[Tom Joad]

Get back to me in 10 years and I will let you know.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

What kind of a pretentious 0L question is this? This is like asking how much Warren Buffet makes as soon as you get into b-school.

[2LLLL]

Unless you're at a lockstep firm, and I have no clue if any of these are lockstep, PPP doesn't mean too much. Partner compensation differentials of 13:1 aren't extraordinary at non-lockstep firms these days.

Obviously a higher PPP will say something about the firm's profitability, but not about what any given partner is making.

[Anonymous User]

What kind of a pretentious 0L question is this? This is like asking how much Warren Buffet makes as soon as you get into b-school.

actually I'm a 2L with a summer associate position at one of the highly touted litigation boutiques (Keker, Susman, Kellog Huber, etc.) and I'm not 100% sure I want to do biglaw long term so I just want to get an idea of how much money I could potentially be bypassing

its not a completely pretentious

[Anonymous User]

I'm really interested in the PPP figures at plaintiffs side firms -- Milberg, Cohen Milstein, Lieff Cabraser, etc. Obviously these firms are much smaller than biglaw firms, but purely out of curiosity, anyone have any idea what the partners make? Wouldn't be surprised if partners at those firms averaged more than partners at some V50 firms.

[Renzo]

PPP is a meaningless number, and made more so by the fact that most firms that report it are lying about it.

[booboo]

PPP is a meaningless number, and made more so by the fact that most firms that report it are lying about it.

Orly? Is partner compensation usually individualistic?

[Renzo]

PPP is a meaningless number, and made more so by the fact that most firms that report it are lying about it.

Orly? Is partner compensation usually individualistic?

It's not only meaningless in that sense, but also in that it doesn't really tell you how much the partners are drawing down, and in that is a very poor indicator of the health or success of a firm more generally.

[ust2008]

PPP is a meaningless number, and made more so by the fact that most firms that report it are lying about it.

Orly? Is partner compensation usually individualistic?

It's not only meaningless in that sense, but also in that it doesn't really tell you how much the partners are drawing down, and in that is a very poor indicator of the health or success of a firm more generally.

I'm asking this out of curiosity: why is PPP a poor measure of a firm's financial health? I don't think its valuable as a measure of partner compensation, but I think looking at PPP as a trend year-over-year isn't a bad measure of financial health overtime. What am I missing?

Thoughts on alternative measures of a firm's financial health/growth prospects?

[bdubs]

I'm asking this out of curiosity: why is PPP a poor measure of a firm's financial health? I don't think its valuable as a measure of partner compensation, but I think looking at PPP as a trend year-over-year isn't a bad measure of financial health overtime. What am I missing?

Thoughts on alternative measures of a firm's financial health/growth prospects?

It rewards firms that are stingy in naming partners. If you spread the partner love around sparingly, then you can keep PPP high while not growing much. If you promote up and coming partners who have solid potential, but currently smaller books of business there is a PPP penalty. Organic revenue and profit growth seem like more solid measures. Firms that do lots of lateral partner hires will be harder to sort out, but PPP for those firms will also be deceptive since partners usually lateral with strings attached.

[ust2008]

I'm asking this out of curiosity: why is PPP a poor measure of a firm's financial health? I don't think its valuable as a measure of partner compensation, but I think looking at PPP as a trend year-over-year isn't a bad measure of financial health overtime. What am I missing?

Thoughts on alternative measures of a firm's financial health/growth prospects?

It rewards firms that are stingy in naming partners. If you spread the partner love around sparingly, then you can keep PPP high while not growing much. If you promote up and coming partners who have solid potential, but currently smaller books of business there is a PPP penalty. Organic revenue and profit growth seem like more solid measures. Firms that do lots of lateral partner hires will be harder to sort out, but PPP for those firms will also be deceptive since partners usually lateral with strings attached.

Interesting. I agree that PPP may undervalue certain firms (e.g., those that are willing to take on partners who may, at least in the short run, bring down the PPP), but I'm not sure if you've convinced that its a bad/worse measure than other options. Revenue is simply a proxy for size, so I don't put much stock in that. YOY profit growth is, of course, closely related to PPP - except its less informative because you don't get the per capita information.

[Renzo]

PPP is a meaningless number, and made more so by the fact that most firms that report it are lying about it.

Orly? Is partner compensation usually individualistic?

It's not only meaningless in that sense, but also in that it doesn't really tell you how much the partners are drawing down, and in that is a very poor indicator of the health or success of a firm more generally.

I'm asking this out of curiosity: why is PPP a poor measure of a firm's financial health? I don't think its valuable as a measure of partner compensation, but I think looking at PPP as a trend year-over-year isn't a bad measure of financial health overtime. What am I missing?

Thoughts on alternative measures of a firm's financial health/growth prospects?

Two problems: First, firms that are notoriously mercenary keep PPP high by de-equitizing underperforming partners, or at least slashing their compensation hoping they will leave, while simultaneously paying outsized sums to lure in lateral partners with business. This keeps PPP high, but relying on a steady diet of laterals with portable business rather than internal growth is not always sustainable.

Second, it is basically just an indirect measure of leverage. The more associates/special counsel (and the harder they can slave-drive them), and less partners, the higher the PPP. A firm that is better at exploiting associates isn't necessarily healthier than a firm with identical revenue that promotes more partners.

There's no magical indicator of firm health, but revenue per lawyer is a better than PPP, since there are really only two ways to get it higher: charge more per hour, or bill more hours; and both of these are good signs the firm is doing well. PPP is also particularly bad because firms cheat when reporting it because it's the number that gets used in "mine is bigger than yours" contests at clubs and parties.