2022 Amlaw PPP Forum

[Anonymous User]

Can a kind soul please post the 2022 Amlaw ppp rankings? Thank you!

[Anonymous User]

Can a kind soul please post the 2022 Amlaw ppp rankings? Thank you!

Doesn't seem to be out yet. 2021 rankings came out on the 20th.

[Anonymous User]

Wachtell ($8.4 million)
Kirkland's ($7.388 million)
DPW ($7.01 million)
S&C ($6.385 million)
P,W ($6.162 million)
STB ($5.98 million)
Cravath ($5.803 million).

[Anonymous User]

Wachtell ($8.4 million)
Kirkland's ($7.388 million)
DPW ($7.01 million)
S&C ($6.385 million)
P,W ($6.162 million)
STB ($5.98 million)
Cravath ($5.803 million).

Wachtell ($8.4 million)
Kirkland ($7.388 million)
DPW ($7.01 million)
S&C ($6.385 million)
P,W ($6.162 million)
STB ($5.98 million)
Cravath ($5.803 million)
Latham ($5.71 million)
Cahill Gordon ($5.533 million)
Weil ($5.181 million)
Skadden ($5.088 million)
Milbank ($5.033 million)
Debevoise ($5.011 million)
Paul Hastings ($4.703 million)
Cleary ($4.69 million)
Gibson Dunn ($4.44 million)
Cadwalader ($4.382 million)
King & Spalding ($4.37 million)
Ropes and Gray ($4.333 million)
Fried Frank ($4.25 million)
Cooley ($4.064 million)
Willkie Farr ($3.9 million)
Sidley Austin ($3.718 million)
Schulte ($3.64 million)
Proskauer Rose ($3.51 million)
White & Case ($3.509 million)

Source: https://www.law.com/international-editi ... 78-192870/
https://www.law.com/international-editi ... arly-5-5b/
https://www.law.com/international-editi ... -rankings/
etc

[Sackboy]

I don't have access to the numbers right now, but am I reading that correctly that CWT's PPP went up $1.8 million (72%)? I've been preaching about their demise for years now, but it looks like the acquisition of a lot of BSF turned things around.

[Anonymous User]

I don't have access to the numbers right now, but am I reading that correctly that CWT's PPP went up $1.8 million (72%)? I've been preaching about their demise for years now, but it looks like the acquisition of a lot of BSF turned things around.

Yep, 4.38 mil PEP. Source here: https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2022 ... 0-in-2021/

[Anonymous User]

Can someone post the RPL too?

[Anonymous User]

Can someone post the RPL too?

Wachtell 3.8 mil
S&C 2.2 mil
Cravath 2.03 mil
KE 1.99 mil
Ropes 1.95 mil
DPW 1.92 mil
STB 1.91 mil
Skadden 1.83 mil
P, W 1.83 mil
Cahill 1.81 mil
Latham 1.78 mil
Debevoise 1.68 mil
Milbank 1.66 mil
Proskauer 1.63 mil
Fried Frank 1.63 mil
GDC 1.61 mil
Paul Hastings 1.6 mil
Weil 1.57 mil
Cadwalader 1.47 mil
Sidley Austin 1.47 mil

[Anonymous User]

it looks like the acquisition of a lot of BSF turned things around.

I, uh, think that had extremely little to do with it. It was a big deal year.

[Sackboy]

it looks like the acquisition of a lot of BSF turned things around.

I, uh, think that had extremely little to do with it. It was a big deal year.

Every year for the past like 5 years has been a "big deal year". Something changed or they had an outlier deal year for themselves.

[Anonymous User]

it looks like the acquisition of a lot of BSF turned things around.

I, uh, think that had extremely little to do with it. It was a big deal year.

Every year for the past like 5 years has been a "big deal year". Something changed or they had an outlier deal year for themselves.

It's because 2020 was an outlier of a bad year for Cadwalader. Annualized growth for 2021 and 2022 was around 30% per year, which is of course still very good, though nothing like 70%. Although the litigation group is growing, CWT is still a primarily transactional firm and the BSF acquisitions did not have an outsized effect on PPP. What I think is interesting is that CWT did this while also decreasing their leverage, since although leverage is on the high end, it is now 5.x when it used to be 7.x.

[gontid]

Can someone post the RPL too?

Wachtell 3.8 mil
S&C 2.2 mil
Cravath 2.03 mil
KE 1.99 mil
Ropes 1.95 mil
DPW 1.92 mil
STB 1.91 mil
Skadden 1.83 mil
P, W 1.83 mil
Cahill 1.81 mil
Latham 1.78 mil
Debevoise 1.68 mil
Milbank 1.66 mil
Proskauer 1.63 mil
Fried Frank 1.63 mil
GDC 1.61 mil
Paul Hastings 1.6 mil
Weil 1.57 mil
Cadwalader 1.47 mil
Sidley Austin 1.47 mil

Where did you get these numbers lol? Ropes’ PPP is 4m and RPL is 2m? LOL

[Anonymous User]

Can someone post the RPL too?

Wachtell 3.8 mil
S&C 2.2 mil
Cravath 2.03 mil
KE 1.99 mil
Ropes 1.95 mil
DPW 1.92 mil
STB 1.91 mil
Skadden 1.83 mil
P, W 1.83 mil
Cahill 1.81 mil
Latham 1.78 mil
Debevoise 1.68 mil
Milbank 1.66 mil
Proskauer 1.63 mil
Fried Frank 1.63 mil
GDC 1.61 mil
Paul Hastings 1.6 mil
Weil 1.57 mil
Cadwalader 1.47 mil
Sidley Austin 1.47 mil

Where did you get these numbers lol? Ropes’ PPP is 4m and RPL is 2m? LOL

“Revenue at Ropes & Gray hit $2.67 billion in 2021, up 21.9% when compared with $2.19 million in 2020. Even after adding 75 lawyers to its overall head count, revenue per lawyer (RPL) was $1.95 million in 2021, a 15.4% improvement from $1.69 million the prior year.

Net income surged to $1.160 billion in 2021, a 29.9% increase when compared with $893.3 million in 2021. With 1.1% more equity partners, profits per equity partner (PEP) came in at $4.33 million in 2021, up 28.4% when compared with $3.37 million the year before.” (The American Lawyer)

Surely all the firms juice their numbers to some degree, but it sounds like you have some larger deception in mind. Can you elaborate?

[Sackboy]

Don't know why the Ropes numbers should be surprising. The firm has been doing great, and it's top 10 in PE/Funds, so it makes sense that it has continued to do well.

[Anonymous User]

Don't know why the Ropes numbers should be surprising. The firm has been doing great, and it's top 10 in PE/Funds, so it makes sense that it has continued to do well.

They're surprising because PPP is very low vis a vis the high RPL. There's a lot of inefficiency there.

[Sackboy]

Don't know why the Ropes numbers should be surprising. The firm has been doing great, and it's top 10 in PE/Funds, so it makes sense that it has continued to do well.

They're surprising because PPP is very low vis a vis the high RPL. There's a lot of inefficiency there.

All it means is that they have a higher proportion of equity partners relative tot heir entire lawyer headcount. I'd hardly call that "inefficiency".

[Anonymous User]

Don't know why the Ropes numbers should be surprising. The firm has been doing great, and it's top 10 in PE/Funds, so it makes sense that it has continued to do well.

They're surprising because PPP is very low vis a vis the high RPL. There's a lot of inefficiency there.

All it means is that they have a higher proportion of equity partners relative tot heir entire lawyer headcount. I'd hardly call that "inefficiency".

You can spin it however you want, but it's inefficient to have all these non-producing equity partners dragging down PPP. Ropes is still working its lawyers to death like the other top sweatshops yet has the PPP of firms with 25% less RPL. That leaves them vulnerable to having their top producers picked off by the likes of K&E.

[Anonymous User]

Don't know why the Ropes numbers should be surprising. The firm has been doing great, and it's top 10 in PE/Funds, so it makes sense that it has continued to do well.

They're surprising because PPP is very low vis a vis the high RPL. There's a lot of inefficiency there.

All it means is that they have a higher proportion of equity partners relative tot heir entire lawyer headcount. I'd hardly call that "inefficiency".

You can spin it however you want, but it's inefficient to have all these non-producing equity partners dragging down PPP. Ropes is still working its lawyers to death like the other top sweatshops yet has the PPP of firms with 25% less RPL. That leaves them vulnerable to having their top producers picked off by the likes of K&E.

No - lockstep equity is a thing of the past. Ropes just decided to call more partners equity partners than K&E -- that doesn't speak to the amount of compensation partners (equity or non-equity) are making

[Sackboy]

All it means is that they have a higher proportion of equity partners relative tot heir entire lawyer headcount. I'd hardly call that "inefficiency".

You can spin it however you want, but it's inefficient to have all these non-producing equity partners dragging down PPP. Ropes is still working its lawyers to death like the other top sweatshops yet has the PPP of firms with 25% less RPL. That leaves them vulnerable to having their top producers picked off by the likes of K&E.

Your view is utterly one-dimensional. These "non-producing" equity partners might also get minimum shares (or close to) so that the rainmakers are Ropes are taking in what they need to in order to not get poached by K&E. Ropes also might view these partners as essential to cross-selling their business and their current growth.

[Anonymous User]

Don't know why the Ropes numbers should be surprising. The firm has been doing great, and it's top 10 in PE/Funds, so it makes sense that it has continued to do well.

They're surprising because PPP is very low vis a vis the high RPL. There's a lot of inefficiency there.

All it means is that they have a higher proportion of equity partners relative tot heir entire lawyer headcount. I'd hardly call that "inefficiency".

You can spin it however you want, but it's inefficient to have all these non-producing equity partners dragging down PPP. Ropes is still working its lawyers to death like the other top sweatshops yet has the PPP of firms with 25% less RPL. That leaves them vulnerable to having their top producers picked off by the likes of K&E.

No - lockstep equity is a thing of the past. Ropes just decided to call more partners equity partners than K&E -- that doesn't speak to the amount of compensation partners (equity or non-equity) are making

How much $$ do newly minted Ropes equity partners make?

[Anonymous User]

Don't know why the Ropes numbers should be surprising. The firm has been doing great, and it's top 10 in PE/Funds, so it makes sense that it has continued to do well.

They're surprising because PPP is very low vis a vis the high RPL. There's a lot of inefficiency there.

All it means is that they have a higher proportion of equity partners relative tot heir entire lawyer headcount. I'd hardly call that "inefficiency".

You can spin it however you want, but it's inefficient to have all these non-producing equity partners dragging down PPP. Ropes is still working its lawyers to death like the other top sweatshops yet has the PPP of firms with 25% less RPL. That leaves them vulnerable to having their top producers picked off by the likes of K&E.

No - lockstep equity is a thing of the past. Ropes just decided to call more partners equity partners than K&E -- that doesn't speak to the amount of compensation partners (equity or non-equity) are making

They have atrocious margins relative to peer firms (40-45% versus 55-60%). Their cost structure is the issue given similar RPL. Forget about PPP, just look at total revenue and total profit.

[Sackboy]

They have atrocious margins relative to peer firms (40-45% versus 55-60%). Their cost structure is the issue given similar RPL. Forget about PPP, just look at total revenue and total profit.

Relative to their peers? It's a V20. Sidley has about the same profit margin. Also, this assumes that every firm has the same business structure. Not every firm produces 90% of its revenue from high profit PE deals. Ropes has several lower margin practices that a white shoe/KE wouldn't maintain. Those partners are probably comped accordingly, but they are a drag on profit margin. No reason to particularly care though if they have cut business deals that make sense.

[Anonymous User]

Ropes likely has a significant defined benefit plan for its retired partners that is dragging on profitability. Those can be a 5-10% hit on net income.