The AmLaw 200 (it's actually the AmLaw 101—200, but that's nitpicking) is out and if "a few anecdotes make a trend," let us be among the first to claim such an insight:  The AmLaw 200 is no longer a ghetto for small firms in big markets or big firms in small markets, but instead is announcing through the very conspicuous number of $1-million+ profits-per-partner members that you don't have to be big to be rich.  To be specific, in the past four years of publishing the AmLaw 200, only one firm broke that threshold; this year seven did (vs. 32 firms in the AmLaw 100).

How did they do it?  I'm actually going to be working on some regression analysis of the numbers in the near future to see if anything statistically significant can be said, but for now one strategy seems to be, "Specialize."  (Of course, as many mutual fund managers learned to their dismay ca. spring of 2000, picking the wrong specialty horse—say, dot-coms and telecoms—can demonstrate the power of that strategy in an unintended direction.) 

Another factor that is highly suggestive (again, we await statistical analysis) is not having a two-tiered partnership, with equity- and non-equity partners.  Counterintuitive as this appears at first (isn't leverage always good?), there may be cultural and psychological factors distinct to sophisticated law firms that make the value of unity and cohesion superior to the financial-ratio advantage a two-tiered system would introduce.

In the meantime, here's the revenue distribution graphically.  Note how much smoother it is (what a surprise!) than the AmLaw 100's.