Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=312319
Doesn't seem to be out yet. 2021 rankings came out on the 20th.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 9:02 pmCan a kind soul please post the 2022 Amlaw ppp rankings? Thank you!
Wachtell ($8.4 million)Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 9:07 amWachtell ($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).
Yep, 4.38 mil PEP. Source here: https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2022 ... 0-in-2021/
Wachtell 3.8 mil
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 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:22 pmI, uh, think that had extremely little to do with it. It was a big deal year.
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.Sackboy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:33 pmEvery 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 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:22 pmI, uh, think that had extremely little to do with it. It was a big deal year.
Where did you get these numbers lol? Ropes’ PPP is 4m and RPL is 2m? LOLAnonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:19 pmWachtell 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
“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.gontid wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 9:26 pmWhere did you get these numbers lol? Ropes’ PPP is 4m and RPL is 2m? LOLAnonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:19 pmWachtell 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
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 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:49 pmThey're surprising because PPP is very low vis a vis the high RPL. There's a lot of inefficiency there.
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.Sackboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:08 pmAll 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 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:49 pmThey're surprising because PPP is very low vis a vis the high RPL. There's a lot of inefficiency there.
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 makingAnonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:42 pmYou 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.Sackboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:08 pmAll 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 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:49 pmThey're surprising because PPP is very low vis a vis the high RPL. There's a lot of inefficiency there.
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.Sackboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:08 pmYou 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 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:49 pmAll it means is that they have a higher proportion of equity partners relative tot heir entire lawyer headcount. I'd hardly call that "inefficiency".
How much $$ do newly minted Ropes equity partners make?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:50 pmNo - 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 makingAnonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:42 pmYou 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.Sackboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:08 pmAll 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 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:49 pmThey're surprising because PPP is very low vis a vis the high RPL. There's a lot of inefficiency there.
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.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:50 pmNo - 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 makingAnonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:42 pmYou 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.Sackboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:08 pmAll 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 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:49 pmThey're surprising because PPP is very low vis a vis the high RPL. There's a lot of inefficiency there.
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 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 2:23 pmThey 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.