� "Big Firms, Big Business" On Legal Talk Network | Main | All Marketing Generalizations Are Obvious �
March 6, 2006
Is Skadden's Revenue Closer to $1.5-Billion or to $7.5-Billion?
It's official, according to The Lawyer: For Skadden and six other firms, 2005 was indeed, as Skadden's New York-based M&A partner Tom Kennedy put it, "a very good year."
For the first time ever, seven US firms topped $1.0-billion in revenue, Skadden first among this august pack at $1.58B, and Weil-Gotshal at $1.00B (the suspiciously round number doubtless making some wonder if they've been taking accounting lessons from Jack Welch (and see this), but at "Adam Smith, Esq." we tend to take these reports at face value absent insider info to the contrary—which we utterly lack here). Here's the breakdown of the top 20 US firms by revenue:
| US TOP 20 FIRMS |
| Rank | Firm | Location | Rev 2005 | Rev 2004 | % change |
PEP 2005 | PEP 2004 | % change |
||||
| ($m) | (£m) | ($m) | (£m) | ($K) | (£K) | ($K) | (£K) | |||||
| 1 | Skadden | New York | 1,580.0 | 903.7 | 1,440.0 | 823.7 | 10 |
1,850 | 1,058 | 1,735 | 992 | 6.5 |
| 2 | Latham & Watkins | Los Angeles | 1,400.0 | 800.8 | 1,206.0 | 689.8 | 16 |
1,600 | 915 | 1,405 | 804 | 14 |
| 3 | Baker & McKenzie | Chicago | 1,352.0 | 773.3 | 1,228.0 | 702.4 | 10 |
750 | 429 | 655 | 375 | 14.5 |
| 4 | Jones Day | National | 1,309.0 | 748.7 | 1,190.0 | 680.7 | 10 |
808 | 462 | 735 | 420 | 10 |
| 5 | Sidley | New York | 1,124.0 | 642.9 | 1,029.0 | 588.6 | 9 |
1,235 | 706 | 1,020 | 583 | 21 |
| 6 | White & Case | New York | 1,050.0 | 600.6 | 953.0 | 545.1 | 10 |
1,240 | 709 | 1,220 | 698 | 2 |
| 7 | Weil Gotshal & Manges | New York | 1,000.0 | 572.0 | 905.0 | 517.6 | 10.5 |
1,850 | 1,058 | 1,700 | 972 | 9 |
| 8 | MBR&M | Chicago | 979.0 | 560.0 | 911.0 | 521.1 | 7.5 |
968 | 554 | 905 | 518 | 7 |
| 9 | Kirkland Ellis | Chicago | 935.0 | 534.8 | 835.0 | 477.6 | 12 |
2,170 | 1,241 | 1,975 | 1,130 | 10 |
| 10 | Sullivan & Cromwell | New York | 916.0 | 523.9 | 833.0 | 476.5 | 10 |
2,590 | 1,481 | 2,350 | 1,344 | 10 |
| 11 | Shearman & Sterling | New York | 830.0 | 474.7 | 775.0 | 443.3 | 7 |
1,380 | 789 | 1,150 | 658 | 20 |
| 12 | Wilmer Hale | Washington DC | 815.0 | 466.2 | 750.0 | 429.0 | 8.5 |
915 | 523 | 870 | 498 | 5 |
| 13 | Cleary Gottlieb | New York | 813.0 | 465.0 | 695.0 | 397.5 | 17 |
1,970 | 1,127 | 1,715 | 981 | 15 |
| 14 | O'Melveny & Myers | Los Angeles | 808.0 | 462.2 | 697.0 | 398.7 | 16 |
1,610 | 921 | 1,310 | 749 | 23 |
| 15 | Morgan Lewis | National | 805.0 | 460.4 | 723.0 | 413.5 | 11 |
1,002 | 573 | 900 | 515 | 11 |
| 16 | McDermott | Chicago | 799.5 | 457.3 | 745.0 | 426.1 | 7 |
1,190 | 681 | 1,119 | 640 | 6 |
| 17 | Greenberg Traurig | National | 860.0 | 491.9 | 712.0 | 407.2 | 21 |
N/A | N/A | 985 | 563 | N/A |
| 18 | Gibson Dunn | Los Angeles | 746.0 | 426.7 | 693.0 | 396.4 | 8 |
1,635 | 935 | 1,516 | 867 | 8 |
| 19 | Simpson Thacher | New York | 730.0 | 417.5 | 691.0 | 395.2 | 6 |
2,400 | 1,373 | 2,330 | 1,333 | 3 |
| 20 | Hogan & Hartson | Washington, DC | 690.0 | 394.7 | 630.0 | 360.3 | 9.5 |
900 | 515 | 825 | 472 | 9 |
The indubitable Financial Times, which has always covered law-land better than the WSJ, also has the story.
As you can see, more than half recorded revenue jumps in the double-digit percentages, and PPP increases were even better.
More impressive still? What I call the "Complexity Quotient" of managing a sophisticated professional services firm. According to my friends in management-consulting ranks, the rule of thumb they employ when estimated the challenges facing leaders of a professional services firm as contrasted to those facing management of a retail, manufacturing, or construction firm (say) is that $1.00 of professional service revenue is 5 times more complicated than $1.00 of garden-variety revenue.
Which means Skadden isn't strictly comparable to a $1.5-billion/year "regular economy" firm, but rather to a $7.5-billion/year firm in more conventional sectors. This would make them, by revenue, one-quarter the size of Intel, or nearly as large as the domestic video-game industry.
Which leads those of a contrarian frame of mind (moi?!) to pose the following question to you, smart and savvy readers:
Rules of the poll road:
- I will leave it up for about 10 days.
- Multiple answers are permitted, but we trust your discretion in keeping them internally consistent.
- You'll read all about the results right here, so stay tuned.
In the meantime, my kudos to Earle Yaffa.
Posted by Bruce at March 6, 2006 5:19 PM | TrackBackPosted to Cultural Considerations | Finance | Globalization | Leadership | M&A | Strategy Printer-friendly version
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
"Adam Smith, Esq. is, and will remain, the definitive
voice on law firm strategy."
—David
Jabbari, Global Head of Know-How, Allen & Overy
"I just don't know what the profession would do without you."
—Chairman, AmLaw 25 firm
“Constantly stunning.’—Managing Partner
"I read three things: The Wall Street Journal, The Economist,
and Adam Smith, Esq.—and I tell my partners to do the same."
—Managing Partner, AmLaw 50 firm
“You have a fascinating niche which you cover ever so much better than
does the conventional legal press.”
—Walter Olson of Overlawyered
“Required reading: Amazing.”—Venture Capitalist
"You're the brand name in law firm economics. There is no one out
there—repeat, no one—who covers this business better, or thinks about
it more creatively, than you. I tell people this guy is really, really good."
—Chair/Managing Partner, AmLaw 50 firm
Business Pundit
CorporateCounsel.Net Blog
Conglomerate
BusFilm by Larry Ribstein
Business Pundit
Carnival of the Capitalists
Chicago Boyz
Ensight
Marginal Revolution
Ronald Coase Institute
Stephen Bainbridge
"Adam Smith, Esq.,"® an inquiry into the economics of law firms, and the maroon banner, are a federally registered trademark belonging to Adam Smith, Esq., LLC, which is partially owned and controlled by Bruce MacEwen.
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.