The 2006 AmLaw 100: More Fun With Numbers
Here at "Adam Smith, Esq.," the release of the annual AmLaw 100 feels a bit like Super Bowl weekend; there are lots of stories to report. Fortunately, here in virtual space, we have unlimited newsprint and ink.
Here are a few more ways to slice the data.
First, let's look at the biggest gainers and losers in terms of the number of slots by which firms rose or fell vis-a-vis last year. Of course, not all gains or losses of "one unit" of rank in the AmLaw are equal. For example, to jump four slots from #87 to #83 requires an additional $9-million revenue; but to jump from #8 to #4 requires an additional $306-million, or about 34 times as much in absolute terms. Nevertheless, since all firms are by definition ranked shoulder-by-shoulder with their peer group in terms of revenue, the numbers are somewhat revealing. And of course the standard disclaimer: Most of the biggest gains came through merger or sizable lateral partner acquisitions.
Here's how it looks in a distribution curve:
Between the green lines are all the firms that ended 2005 within 10 slots of where they were in 2004; the orange bounds mark those firms within 5 slots, and the red bounds those within 2 slots. If you ask me, this looks like a relatively stable distribution if it were a long period (say, five or ten years).
But if you replay this videotape every year for a decade, you will end up with a radically different array of firms. Regular readers know I incline to that view already, and I may be adopting it ever-more-firmly. Incumbents have no pre-ordained right to pride of place. En garde.
So: Forthwith to the table itself, where we name names:
| 2005 | 2004 | Change | Firm |
| 74 | 117 | 43 | Edwards Angell |
| 80 | 102 | 22 | Dickstein Shapiro |
| 10 | 25 | 15 | Piper Rudnick |
| 34 | 49 | 15 | Ropes & Gray |
| 53 | 67 | 14 | Goodwin Procter |
| 83 | 97 | 14 | Troutman Sanders |
| 89 | 103 | 14 | Kramer Levin |
| 30 | 42 | 12 | Pillsbury Winthrop |
| 29 | 40 | 11 | Dechert |
| 45 | 55 | 10 | Kirkpatrick & Lockhart |
| 97 | 107 | 10 | Sutherland Asbill |
| 51 | 60 | 9 | LeBoeuf, Lamb |
| 81 | 88 | 7 | Wilson Elser |
| 92 | 99 | 7 | Faegre & Benson |
| 77 | 83 | 6 | Sheppard, Mullin |
| 90 | 96 | 6 | Pepper Hamilton |
| 42 | 46 | 4 | Cadwalader |
| 47 | 51 | 4 | Proskauer Rose |
| 78 | 82 | 4 | Steptoe & Johnson |
| 12 | 15 | 3 | Greenberg Traurig |
| 25 | 28 | 3 | Foley & Lardner |
| 75 | 78 | 3 | Thelen Reid |
| 84 | 87 | 3 | Fish & Richardson |
| 86 | 89 | 3 | Venable |
| 100 | 103 | 3 | Hughes Hubbard |
| 22 | 24 | 2 | Morrison & Foerster |
| 41 | 43 | 2 | Milbank, Tweed |
| 67 | 69 | 2 | Seyfarth Shaw |
| 72 | 74 | 2 | Jenner & Block |
| 2 | 3 | 1 | Latham & Watkins |
| 7 | 8 | 1 | Weil, Gotshal |
| 15 | 16 | 1 | O’Melveny & Myers |
| 63 | 64 | 1 | Covington & Burling |
| 71 | 72 | 1 | Duane Morris |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | Skadden |
| 4 | 4 | 0 | Jones Day |
| 5 | 5 | 0 | Sidley Austin |
| 6 | 6 | 0 | White & Case |
| 9 | 9 | 0 | Kirkland & Ellis |
| 48 | 48 | 0 | Sonnenschein |
| 54 | 54 | 0 | Wilson Sonsini |
| 59 | 59 | 0 | Fried, Frank |
| 61 | 61 | 0 | Howrey |
| 66 | 66 | 0 | Seyfarth Shaw |
| 70 | 70 | 0 | Cooley Godward |
| 76 | 76 | 0 | Blank Rome |
| 79 | 79 | 0 | Stroock & Stroock |
| 91 | 91 | 0 | Mintz, Levin |
| 3 | 2 | -1 | Baker & McKenzie |
| 8 | 7 | -1 | Mayer, Brown |
| 11 | 10 | -1 | Sullivan & Cromwell |
| 18 | 17 | -1 | Cleary Gottlieb |
| 19 | 18 | -1 | Gibson, Dunn |
| 20 | 19 | -1 | Simpson Thacher |
| 21 | 20 | -1 | Hogan & Hartson |
| 23 | 22 | -1 | Paul, Hastings |
| 27 | 26 | -1 | Bingham McCutchen |
| 28 | 27 | -1 | Holland & Knight |
| 56 | 55 | -1 | Bryan Cave |
| 69 | 68 | -1 | Perkins Coie |
| 99 | 98 | -1 | Cozen O’Connor |
| 13 | 11 | -2 | Shearman & Sterling |
| 14 | 12 | -2 | Wilmer Cutler |
| 16 | 14 | -2 | Morgan, Lewis |
| 31 | 29 | -2 | Winston & Strawn |
| 32 | 30 | -2 | Paul, Weiss |
| 33 | 31 | -2 | Reed Smith |
| 35 | 33 | -2 | Orrick |
| 38 | 36 | -2 | King & Spalding |
| 39 | 37 | -2 | Vinson & Elkins |
| 43 | 41 | -2 | Hunton & Williams |
| 64 | 62 | -2 | Nixon Peabody |
| 65 | 63 | -2 | McGuireWoods |
| 73 | 71 | -2 | Baker & Hostetler |
| 82 | 80 | -2 | Kilpatrick Stockton |
| 88 | 86 | -2 | Finnegan, Henderson |
| 24 | 21 | -3 | Akin Gump |
| 26 | 23 | -3 | Davis Polk |
| 37 | 34 | -3 | Debevoise & Plimpton |
| 40 | 37 | -3 | Cravath |
| 49 | 46 | -3 | Willkie Farr |
| 55 | 52 | -3 | Squire, Sanders |
| 60 | 57 | -3 | Katten Muchin |
| 68 | 65 | -3 | Dorsey & Whitney |
| 17 | 13 | -4 | McDermott Will |
| 36 | 32 | -4 | Fulbright & Jaworski |
| 62 | 58 | -4 | Kaye Scholer |
| 96 | 92 | -4 | Drinker Biddle |
| 97 | 93 | -4 | Patton Boggs |
| 49 | 44 | -5 | Wachtell |
| 58 | 53 | -5 | Dewey Ballantine |
| 95 | 90 | -5 | Andrews Kurth |
| 87 | 81 | -6 | Womble Carlyle |
| 46 | 39 | -7 | Arnold & Porter |
| 52 | 45 | -7 | Baker Botts |
| 57 | 50 | -7 | Alston & Bird |
| 43 | 35 | -8 | Heller Ehrman |
| 94 | 85 | -9 | Cahill Gordon |
| 85 | 75 | -10 | Shook, Hardy |
| 92 | 77 | -15 | Chadbourne & Parke |
No, we're not done yet.
Next, try this: Let's rank all the firms in order by the percentage by which their revenue per lawyer is greater or less than the average revenue per lawyer. In other words, if your firm's revenue per lawyer were $725,634, you would be precisely average. To the extent your firm's revenue per lawyer exceeds or falls short of that number, we can generate a percentage variation.
This is, roughly speaking, a measure of how effectively firms use lawyers to generate revenue compared to the average effectiveness across the AmLaw 100.
As they say , "let's go to the videotape!" And it's no surprise as to who's #1:
| Firm | % Variance |
| Wachtell | 230.00% |
| Sullivan & Cromwell | 124.13% |
| Cravath | 76.40% |
| Davis Polk | 57.48% |
| Simpson Thacher | 54.85% |
| Paul, Weiss | 42.10% |
| Gibson, Dunn | 39.30% |
| Milbank, Tweed | 38.37% |
| Skadden | 37.30% |
| Shearman & Sterling | 36.66% |
| Kirkland & Ellis | 35.99% |
| Weil, Gotshal | 31.41% |
| Cadwalader | 29.50% |
| Debevoise & Plimpton | 27.46% |
| Cleary Gottlieb | 25.73% |
| Cahill Gordon | 24.25% |
| Fried, Frank | 22.71% |
| Latham & Watkins | 20.53% |
| Seyfarth Shaw | 19.24% |
| Willkie Farr | 18.31% |
| Finnegan, Henderson | 16.92% |
| Wilmer Cutler | 16.51% |
| Ropes & Gray | 15.81% |
| O’Melveny & Myers | 13.97% |
| Arnold & Porter | 12.35% |
| Fish & Richardson | 11.01% |
| Heller Ehrman | 10.95% |
| Kaye Scholer | 10.57% |
| Kramer Levin | 10.25% |
| Vinson & Elkins | 8.97% |
| Bingham McCutchen | 8.96% |
| Dickstein Shapiro | 7.86% |
| Dewey Ballantine | 7.75% |
| Stroock & Stroock | 7.74% |
| Akin Gump | 7.26% |
| Covington & Burling | 6.66% |
| McDermott Will | 6.56% |
| Sidley Austin | 6.53% |
| Orrick | 5.60% |
| Paul, Hastings | 5.53% |
| Wilson Sonsini | 3.61% |
| Steptoe & Johnson | 3.56% |
| Mayer, Brown | 3.33% |
| Goodwin Procter | 3.23% |
| Hughes Hubbard | 2.89% |
| Proskauer Rose | 2.62% |
| Morrison & Foerster | 1.26% |
| Hogan & Hartson | 1.22% |
| Jenner & Block | 0.82% |
| Cooley Godward | -0.56% |
| LeBoeuf, Lamb | -0.92% |
| Winston & Strawn | -1.14% |
| Howrey | -1.87% |
| Sheppard, Mullin | -2.20% |
| Thelen Reid | -2.27% |
| Dechert | -3.38% |
| Baker Botts | -4.04% |
| Foley & Lardner | -5.68% |
| Morgan, Lewis | -5.72% |
| Piper Rudnick | -5.82% |
| King & Spalding | -6.09% |
| Sonnenschein | -6.74% |
| Katten Muchin | -7.69% |
| Pillsbury Winthrop | -8.23% |
| Greenberg Traurig | -11.11% |
| Fulbright & Jaworski | -13.43% |
| Chadbourne & Parke | -14.06% |
| Reed Smith | -15.09% |
| Squire, Sanders | -16.91% |
| Andrews Kurth | -17.09% |
| Jones Day | -17.09% |
| Nixon Peabody | -17.25% |
| White & Case | -17.35% |
| Alston & Bird | -17.65% |
| Pepper Hamilton | -17.74% |
| Hunton & Williams | -17.97% |
| Sutherland Asbill | -18.20% |
| Duane Morris | -18.30% |
| Venable | -18.91% |
| Mintz, Levin | -18.94% |
| Edwards Angell | -20.87% |
| Perkins Coie | -21.04% |
| Blank Rome | -21.67% |
| Dorsey & Whitney | -22.04% |
| Kirkpatrick & Lockhart | -22.78% |
| Patton Boggs | -23.71% |
| Kilpatrick Stockton | -24.13% |
| Drinker Biddle | -24.68% |
| Bryan Cave | -25.08% |
| Seyfarth Shaw | -26.74% |
| Shook, Hardy | -28.02% |
| Faegre & Benson | -29.56% |
| McGuireWoods | -30.28% |
| Holland & Knight | -31.39% |
| Troutman Sanders | -31.51% |
| Womble Carlyle | -35.05% |
| Baker & Hostetler | -35.31% |
| Cozen O’Connor | -36.96% |
| Baker & McKenzie | -37.56% |
| Wilson Elser | -54.77% |
"Super Bowl Weekend?" Indeed. Plan on coming back for more here on "Adam Smith, Esq." We haven't run out of ink yet.
http://www.bmacewen.com/blog/archives/2006/04/the_2006_amlaw_100_more_f.html