AmLaw 100 and 200 overview: State of the law firm industry (2014)

Top firms remain drivers of growth,
although not all fared as well
June 20142014 AmLaw 100 & 200 overview

AmLaw 2014 key findings
• Gross revenue across the AmLaw 100 grew by a solid 5.4 percent year-on-year, the fastest rate since 2010. In turn, this brought gross revenue to
another new high: $77.4 billion. The AmLaw 200 hit $19.0 billion, growing at 2.7 percent, half the rate of AmLaw 100 growth.
- The top 10 firms in terms of gross revenue overall raked in $20.2 billion, or 25.7 percent of the AmLaw 100 total. Compared to last year, this
represents an increase of 40 basis points. 17.3 percent of AmLaw 200 gross revenue was concentrated in the top segment of the market,
indicating a more even distribution.
- These top 10 firms posted profit growth of 8.3 percent year-on-year, 1.5 times faster than the AmLaw 100 average of 5.4 percent. Year-over-
year growth averaged 4.9 percent in 2012. On the other hand, the top tier of the AmLaw 200 posted slower-than-average gross revenue
growth over the year.
- The top 10 firms in terms of gross revenue increase grew on average by 12.5 percent, 2.3 times faster than the AmLaw 100 average and
more than 4.0 times faster than the middle of the pack. The top 10 in the same metric last year saw profits rise 8.2 percent. This was more
exaggerated in the AmLaw 200, with the same segment of the spectrum averaging year-over-year growth of 20.0 percent.
- Outside of gross revenue, the AmLaw 100 and 200 posted slower growth than in previous years:
- Profits per partner barely nudged, up just 0.2 percent from 2012 to $1.5 million. For the AmLaw 200, this metric was up by 0.7 percent, but
only reached $701,310.
- Revenue per lawyer decreased by 0.4 percent to $840,963. The AmLaw 200 posted far faster growth in comparison – 2.5 percent – although
RPL for these firms was $626,784.
• This mixed bag of results indicates segmentation of the top 100 law firms nationally. While revenues are up, this comes on the heels of growth in the
uppermost segment of the industry, while the near lack of growth in RPL and PPP signals, at minimum, stagnation in the middle segment and lower
end of the market. In general, the AmLaw 100 saw more unequal growth than the AmLaw 200, but both groupings lack uniform improvements.
• Large law firms are witnessing cost pressures increasing. Real estate pricing in law firm-heavy submarkets, particularly in major markets, are up
significantly. Class A asking rents are up 4.7 percent year-on-year in Midtown Manhattan, 3.0 percent in the Chicago CBD, 4.8 percent in Downtown
Los Angeles, 5.6 percent in San Francisco and 4.6 percent in the Boston CBD. Similarly, salaries for lawyers already stand at $131,990 nationally,
breaking $150,000 easily in top law markets. Real estate and labor are the primary costs incurred by law firms and are likely to rise more in the
coming years.
2
Source: JLL Research, American Lawyer

AmLaw 100 posting faster gains in gross revenue; AmLaw 200
outpacing in revenue per lawyer and profit per partner…
3
+5.4%
+2.7%
AmLaw 100
Gross revenue
AmLaw 200
Gross revenue
-0.4%
+2.5%
AmLaw 100
RPL
AmLaw 200
RPL
AmLaw 100
PPP
AmLaw 200
PPP
+0.2%
+0.7%

…although AmLaw 100 revenue and profits are significantly
higher in all categories
$77.4
$19.0
$0.0
$10.0
$20.0
$30.0
$40.0
$50.0
$60.0
$70.0
$80.0
$90.0
AmLaw 100 AmLaw 200
4
Gross revenue ($ billions) Revenue per lawyer Profits per partner
$840,963
$626,784
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
AmLaw 100 AmLaw 200
$1,500,000
$701,310
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
AmLaw 100 AmLaw 200

AmLaw 100 gross revenue jumped 5.4 percent to $77.4 billion, a
record high and fastest growth since 2010
$31.1
$35.1
$38.1
$41.7
$46.0
$50.9
$56.8
$64.5
$67.3
$64.4
$67.4
$71.4
$73.4
$77.4
$20.0
$30.0
$40.0
$50.0
$60.0
$70.0
$80.0
$90.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grossrevenue($billions)
5

AmLaw 100 gross revenue was distributed highly unevenly, with
the top 10 roughly equaling the bottom 75
$200.0
$700.0
$1,200.0
$1,700.0
$2,200.0
$2,700.0
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
AmLaw 100 rank
6
Top 10
25.7% of
AmLaw
100
revenue
11-25
48.1% of AmLaw
100 revenue
26-100
26.2% of AmLaw 100 revenue

Revenue was more evenly distributed among the AmLaw 200,
with only 17.3 percent concentrated in firms rankekd 101-110
$50.0
$100.0
$150.0
$200.0
$250.0
$300.0
$350.0
101 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
AmLaw 200 rank
7
Source: JLL Research, American Lawyer – 10th and 11th-ranked firms tied in reveune
Top 11
17.3% of
AmLaw
100
revenue
12-25
18.2% of AmLaw
200 revenue
26-100
64.5% of AmLaw 200 revenue

Rank Firm Gross revenue
Year-on-year revenue
growth
Change in AmLaw 100
ranking
1 DLA Piper $2,481,000,000 1.7% -
2 Baker & McKenzie $2,419,000,000 4.6% -
3 Latham & Watkins $2,285,000,000 2.7% -
4 Skadden $2,235,000,000 1.1% -
5 Kirkland & Ellis $2,016,000,000 4.1% -
6 Norton Rose Fulbright $1,904,000,000 - -
7 Jones Day $1,766,000,000 2.9% 1
8 Hogan Lovells $1,717,500,000 5.2% 1
9 Sidley Austin $1,601,000,000 7.5% 1
10 White & Case $1,440,000,000 4.1% 1
Top 10 AmLaw 100 firms $19,864,500,000 8.3%* -
All other AmLaw 100 firms $57,535,500,000 4.5% -
AmLaw 100 overall $77,400,000,000 5.4% -
The highest-grossing AmLaw 100 firms are growing 1.8x faster
than the remaining 90 AmLaw 100 firms
8
Source: JLL Research, American Lawyer – Norton Rose’s addition increases top 10’s earnings; for top nine, increase is 3.5 percent

Rank Firm Gross revenue
Year-on-year revenue
growth
Change in AmLaw
ranking
101 Sutherland $310,000,000 -1.4% -3
102 Shook Hardy $308,500,000 -2.7% -4
103 Cozen O’Connor $306,500,000 -1.3% -2
104 Husch Blackwell $302,000,000 7.1% +6
105 Fox Rothschild $301,000,000 8.7% +6
106 Wilson Elser $300,000,000 2.4% -1
107 Ballard Spahr $299,000,000 -0.3% -4
108 Akerman $298,000,000 4.4% -
109 Baker Donelson $297,000,000 7.2% +2
110 Chabourne $282,000,000 -2.9% -4
110 Womble Carlyle $282,000,000 -0.7% -1
Top 11 AmLaw 200 firms $3,286,000,000 1.9% -
All other AmLaw 200 firms $15,715,000,000 2.8% -
AmLaw 200 overall $19,001,000,000 2.7% -
On the other hand, the highest-grossing AmLaw 200 firms posted
slower year-on-year growth than the AmLaw 200 average
9

+12.5%
+3.1%
-8.3%
10 fastest-growing AmLaw 100 firms saw gross revenue jump
2.3x faster than AmLaw 100 average
10
Change in gross revenue year-on-year
among 10 fastest-growing firms in the
AmLaw 100
Gross revenue growth of middle
sector of the AmLaw 100
among 10 slowest-growing firms in the
AmLaw 100

+20.0%
+2.0%
-11.3%
Meanwhile, the disparity is greater in the AmLaw 200: fastest-
grossing firms growing 7.4x faster than average
11
among 10 fastest-growing firms in the
AmLaw 200
Gross revenue growth of middle
sector of the AmLaw 200
among 10 slowest-growing firms in the
AmLaw 200

Rank Firm
Profits per
equity partner
Year-on-year growth
1 Wachtell $4,755,000 -4.4%
2 Quinn Emanuel $4,485,000 1.1%
3 Cahill Gordon $3,780,000 6.3%
4 Sullivan & Cromwell $3,675,000 6.5%
5 Paul Weiss $3,620,000 8.1%
6 Cravath $3,290,000 -4.2%
7 Kirkland & Ellis $3,280,000 0.9%
8 Simpson & Thacher $3,165,000 18.8%
9 Boies Shiller $2,975,000 9.2%
10 Gibson Dunn $2,945,000 4.8%
Top 10 AmLaw 100 firms $3,597,000 3.7%
AmLaw 100 overall $1,470,022 0.2%
New York-based firms dominate profits-per-partner rankings; top
segment on the up despite flat growth across the AmLaw 100
12

Rank Firm
Profits per
equity partner
Year-on-year growth
1 Irell $3,355,000 -1.9%
2 Munger Tolles $1,770,000 13.1%
3 BuckleySandler $1,705,000 -5.3%
4 Choate Hall $1,670,000 12.8%
5 Curtis Mallet-Prevost $1,610,000 2.2%
5 Jeffer Mangels $1,610,000 3.9%
7 Patterson Belknap $1,575,000 3.6%
8 Lowenstein Sandler $1,495,000 3.5%
9 Kasowitz $1,450,000 -14.7%
9 Loeb & Loweb $1,450,000 -3.3%
Top 10 AmLaw 200 firms $1,767,000 1.4%
AmLaw 200 overall $701,310 2.5%
Irell far surpasses the rest of the AmLaw 200 in terms of profits
per partner, highest PPP firms are seeing below-average growth
13

Business litigation; corporate, energy and real estate law; M&A;
and tax-specializing firms lead AmLaw 100 RPL growth…
18.0%
14.9%
13.4%
10.9%
9.6% 9.4% 9.1%
8.1%
7.5% 7.4%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
Quinn
Emanuel
Simpson
Thacher
Shearman &
Sterling
Vinson &
Elkins
Proskauer Polsinelli Fried Frank Willkie Cravath Dorsey &
Whitney
Revenueperlawyeryear-on-yearchange
14
Business
litigation
Business
litigation/
corporate
services
Litigation/
international
work
Energy,
environ.,
M&A,
restructuring
Corporate,
M&A, real
estate, tax,
litigation
Corporate,
real estate,
investment,
M&A
Varied
Corporate,
litigation,
M&A, VC,
bankruptcy
Corporate,
internat’l,
tax, antitrust
Self-described specialties
Corporate,
litigation

…although 10 AmLaw 100 firms saw revenue per lawyer shrink
by at least 3.9 percent
-8.6%
-7.8%
-6.6%
-6.3%
-5.4% -5.4%
-4.9%
-4.2% -4.2%
-3.9%
-10.0%
-9.0%
-8.0%
-7.0%
-6.0%
-5.0%
-4.0%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
O'Melveny Jenner &
Block
Locke Lord Wachtell Fish
Richardson
Kilpatrick
Townsend
K&L Gates Finnegan Edwards
Wildman
Weil
15

-5.7%
The contraction in RPL among AmLaw 100 firms, despite strong
top-firm growth, indicates muted gains in the middle of the pack
16
+10.8%
Change in revenue per lawyer
year-on-year among 10 fastest-
growing RPL firms
-0.4% AmLaw 100 overall revenue per
lawyer change since 2012
year-on-year among 10
fastest-contracting RPL firms

A similar trend emerged in the AmLaw 200, with more of a focus
on intellectual property
79.9%
14.9%
11.8% 9.9% 8.4% 8.3% 8.3% 8.0% 7.9% 7.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Robins
Kaplan
Shumaker Munger
Tolles
McElroy
Deutsch
Dinsmore Choate Hall Goulston &
Storrs
Strasburger Patterson
Belknap
Kenyon &
Kenyon
17
Litigation,
antitrust,
intellectual
property
Corporate,
intellectual
property,
trusts
Corporate,
litigation,
real estate,
labor, tax
Varied
Corporate,
labor,
intellectual
property,
regulatory
Varied
Litigation,
tech,
M&A,
finance
Energy,
varied
Varied
Self-described specialties
Intellectual
property

Declines in RPL were more prominent among the AmLaw 200
than the AmLaw 100; 15 saw decreases of more than 1.0 percent
-12.4%
-10.2%
-8.4%
-7.2%
-5.4%
-3.4% -3.1% -3.0% -2.7% -2.5% -2.4% -2.4% -2.3%
-1.8%
-1.1%
-14.0%
-12.0%
-10.0%
-8.0%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
18

+8.5%*
+2.4%
-3.4%
Compared to the AmLaw 100, the middle of the pack played a
larger role in AmLaw 200 RPL growth
19
Source: JLL Research, American Lawyer – *excludes Robins Kaplan’s 79.9 percent increase
fastest-growing RPL firms
AmLaw 100 overall revenue per
lawyer change since 2012
fastest-contracting RPL firms

53.7 percent of AmLaw 100 gross revenue came from firms
headquartered in New York, DC, Chicago and Los Angeles…
20
Atlanta: $2,319.0
Boston: $3,545.0
Chicago: $9,701.5
Cleveland:
$540.0
Dallas: $726.0
Houston: $1,539.5
Indianapolis:
$344.0
Source: JLL Research, American Lawyer (figures in $ millions)
Kansas City: $324.5
Los Angeles: $7,148.0
Miami: $1,230.5
Milwaukee: $644.5
Minneapolis: $778.0
New York: $18,973.0
Philadelphia: $3,571.5
Pittsburgh:
$2,234.0
Richmond: $1,154.5
San Francisco: $3,614.5
Seattle: $635.5
St. Louis: $643.0
Washington, DC: $5,760.0

…even though they are home to only half of all AmLaw 100
firms
Rank Market Number of AmLaw 100 HQs Gross revenue of HQ-ed firms
1 New York 25 $18,973,000,000
2 Washington, DC 10 $5,760,000,000
3 Chicago 8 $9,701,500,000
4 Los Angeles 7 $7,148,000,000
5 Boston 6 $3,545,000,000
5 Philadelphia 6 $3,571,500,000
7 Atlanta 4 $2,319,000,000
8 San Francisco 5 $3,614,500,000
9 Houston 3 $1,539,000,000
10 Dallas 2 $726,000,000
10 Minneapolis 2 $778,000,000
10 Pittsburgh 2 $2,234,000,000
10 Richmond 2 $1,154,500,000
14 Cleveland 1 $540,000,000
14 Indianapolis 1 $344,000,000
14 Kansas City 1 $324,500,000
14 Miami 1 $1,230,500,000
14 Milwaukee 1 $644,500,000
14 Seattle 1 $635,500,000
14 St. Louis 1 $643,000,000
21

Law firm mergers are also keeping pace with 2013; YTD 2014 at
one quarter of 2013 levels
60
70
53
39
60 60
88
22
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Lawfirmmergers
22
Source: JLL Research, Altman Weil

Legal employment key findings
• Legal services employment growth continues to be below average, posting growth of only 0.4 percent year-on-year, just one-quarter of the total non-
farm growth rate: 1.6 percent. Law firms increasingly seek to maximize employee productivity and efficiency, which has lowered potential job growth
in this subsector.
- This is not a new trend, as legal services has yet to see improvements since averaging 12-month growth of around 40,000 jobs in the 1980s.
This rate was halved in the 1990s and has seen an even sharper decline in the 2000s and 2010s.
• From a geographic perspective, legal services employment is highly concentrated in key markets. The top 10 markets, all of which have more than
20,000 legal services employees, account for 32.7 percent of the subsector’s jobs.
- Interestingly, these markets witnessed a combined net loss of 1,000 legal services jobs, while 5,000 were created outside of major markets,
indicating a geographical diversification of legal services employment.
- Secondary markets such as Miami, Philadelphia, Silicon Valley, Charlotte and Pittsburgh are posting gains in legal services employment, while
many others (Houston, Seattle and Denver, for example) saw no net new legal services jobs year-on-year.
• Looking at occupation, lawyers and paralegals combined represent 83.0 of those who work in law-related occupations. The largest fields outside of
these two are title examiners and abstractors, other legal support and magistrate judges and magistrates.
24

Legal services employment growth across the country continues
to be muted, well below average compared to the 1980s and even
the 1990s
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
12-monthnetchange(thousands)
25
Source: JLL Research, Bureau of Labor Statistics
1980s average:
+40,200 jobs
1990s average:
+13,100 jobs
2000s average:
+7,400 jobs
2010s average:
+2,400 jobs
average year-on-year growth

Nationally, legal services is growing at only one-quarter of the
rate as the economy as a whole
26
+0.4%
12-month %
change in legal
services jobs
+1.6%
12-month %
change in total
non-farm jobs

While other traditional industries are also seeing below-average
growth, law is even slower
0.4%
0.7%
1.1%
2.0%
3.6%
4.3%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
Legal services Financial activities Accounting Management of companies PBS overall Management and consulting
12-month%change
27
U.S. average (+1.6%)

Market
Legal
employment
12-month
change
New York 75,400 -1,300 (-1.7%)
Los Angeles 48,700 +500 (+1.0%)
Chicago 47,300 -600 (-1.3%)
Washington, DC 46,400 -100 (-0.2%)
Philadelphia 38,600 +900 (+2.4%)
Boston 24,400 -1,000 (-3.9%)
Houston 23,800 +0 (+0.0%)
Atlanta 23,700 -100 (-0.4%)
Miami 22,500 +800 (+3.7%)
Dallas 21,200 -100 (-0.5%)
Top law markets 372,000 -1,000 (-0.3%)
Rest of U.S. 765,400 +5,000 (+0.7%)
U.S. overall 1,137,400 +4,000 (+0.4%)
While major markets still hold a significant portion of legal
services employees, a few markets are seeing net gains
28
Markets with more than 20,000
people employed in legal services
Around one in three legal services employees is in a top market

Secondary law markets are posting increases in legal services
employment, however
29
Philadelphia: +2.4%
Miami: +3.7%
Silicon Valley: +2.9%
Austin: +1.3%
Charlotte: +4.7%
Baltimore: +2.4%
Pittsburgh: +0.7%

Occupation Employment
Annual
mean wage
Lawyers 592,670 $131,990
Paralegals 271,320 $51,170
Title examiners et al 53,640 $47,340
Other support 45,700 $61,560
Magistrates et al 27,190 $105,380
Court reporters 19,200 $54,760
Administrative judges 14,270 $89,360
Judicial law clerks 10,890 $53,890
Arbitrators et al 6,830 $76,840
U.S. overall 1,041,700 $99,620
From an occupational standpoint, lawyers and paralegals
represent around 83.0 percent of those in legal occupations
30
Lawyers Paralegals and legal assistants
Title examiners and abstractors Other legal support workers
Magistrate judges and magistrates Court reporters
Administrative law judges Judicial law clerks
Arbitrators, mediators and conciliators

Lawyers’ salaries in nearly all large markets exceed the national
average
$169,340
$165,690 $164,620
$158,430
$156,640
$151,510
$144,970 $144,000
$140,050
$135,710
$131,990 $131,860
$120,000
$130,000
$140,000
$150,000
$160,000
$170,000
$180,000
Annualmeanwage
31

Rental growth is fastest in CBD Class A space, which
disproportionately affects law firms compared to other industries
33
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
$40.00
$45.00
$50.00
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Averageaskingrents($p.s.f.)
Class A (CBD) Class A (suburban) Class B (CBD)
Class B (suburban) Class C (CBD) Class C (suburban)
Source: JLL Research

Additionally, the premium for Class A space increased to $4.97
per square foot during the first quarter
34
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00
$5.50
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
ClassApremium($p.s.f.)

Demographics and technology are driving productivity and
utilization and the next evolution of office space use
35
15%
space reduction by
U.S. law firms and
financial services
relocating
72%
of global CREs plan
to aggressively
increase density in
next 3 years
150
Square-foot-per-
employee average
target density, down
from 225 in 2009
50%
of the U.S.
workforce was
baby boomers in
2010. Gen Y will
be 50% by 2020

Many of these changes show stark pre- and post-recession
contrasts
36
Floor plates
Floor plates are up
from 25,000
square feet before
the recession to
60,000 square
feet.
Personal space
Before the
recession,
employees had
around 300 s.f. per
person; now they
have 200 s.f.
Interaction
Employees have
gone from rarely
running into others
to a nine-in-ten
change of bumping
into a coworker.
Building features
Aesthetic and
building features
such as increased
roof heights and
floor-to-ceiling
windows are “in.”

And, as a result, law firms are shifting
37
15.2%
Giveback by law firm
across the U.S. when
relocating
20.5%
across the top seven U.S.
markets when relocating
24.7%
across DC when
relocating
• Going digital
• Elimination of law libraries
• One-sized fits all office
• Higher administrative ratios
• Migration to glass boxes
• Migration to long and lean
• Migration to smaller floorplates

New supply coming to market is slowly increasing, but still well
below historic norms
38
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
140,000,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Completions(s.f.)
Average annual completions

And while the vast majority of new product is top-quality, most
of it is now coming to the suburbs rather than CBDs
39
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 YTD 2014
YTDcompletions(s.f.)
Class A (CBD) Class A (suburban) Class B (CBD)
Class B (suburban) Class C (CBD) Class C (suburban)

AmLaw 100 and 200 overview: State of the law firm industry (2014)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

More from JLL

More from JLL (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

AmLaw 100 and 200 overview: State of the law firm industry (2014)