|
ALM Legal Intelligence Product Descriptions and Methodologies
A - List
Description: The A-List, published annually in July, is based on rankings taken from four ALM surveys conducted throughout the year. Both revenue per lawyer and pro bono ranks are taken from the Am Law 200 (The American Lawyer), while the Diversity Scorecard (The Minority Law Journal) and the Mid level Associates Survey (The American Lawyer) provide the diversity and associate satisfaction ranks, respectively. The A-List formula provides a collective measurement of the most successful and committed firms in the United States. Data fields include:
Methodology/Sources: To be named of the 20 firms on the prestigious A-List, The American Lawyer starts with the rankings from four different surveys that rated firms' performances for the previous fiscal year. Firm rankings are converted to points by inverting the score. The values are then weighted to find the overall scores. The following are the four components of The A-List: Revenue Per Lawyer, Pro Bono, Associate Satisfaction, and Diversity. REVENUE PER LAWYER (RPL) RANKINGS come from The Am Law 100 and 200 reports, which are based on the previous fiscal year . A firm’s rank for The Am Law 200 is inverted to come up with its points for the A-List. For example, the number one firm gets 200 points, and the number 200 firm receives one point. PRO BONO RANKINGS are derived from the per capita hours and number of firm lawyers who performed at least 20 hours of service annually. The rankings for the Pro Bono list are inverted to come up with point values for the A-List, as described for the RPL points, above. ASSOCIATE SATISFACTION RANKINGS are determined from The American Lawyer’s annual survey of midlevels (third-, fourth-, and fifth-year associates). Any firm with at least 10 midlevels may participate in this survey. In 2008, for example, 157 firms returned at least ten responses, which qualified those firms for a national ranking. Because there were fewer than 200 firms on the Midlevel Survey list, for the purposes of the A-List, the top-ranked firm received a score of 200 and the bottom-ranked received a score of 44. DIVERSITY RANKINGS come from Minority Law Journal’s Diversity Scorecard, which ranks firms based on their percentage of U.S. lawyers who are from a minority group. The firms surveyed include The National Law Journal’s NLJ 250, plus five Am Law 200 firms that didn’t make the NLJ 250 cutoff. In all, 210 of the 252 firms surveyed provided diversity data. In this case, the top-ranked firm received 200 points for the A-List, and all firms below the rank of 200 received a single point. In the past, rankings were based only on the minority percentage of all U.S. attorneys. This year we’ve revised our rankings to stress the importance of hiring and promoting minority attorneys to partnership positions. Our new diversity score was created by adding the minority percentage of all U.S. attorneys at the firms surveyed to the minority percentage of all U.S. partners at those firms. Am Law 200 firms that did not participate in one or more of the other surveys did not receive any points for those surveys. To come up with the overall A-List score, The American Lawyer doubled the points for both revenue per lawyer and pro bono and added them to the points from the associate satisfaction and diversity surveys. Firms were then ranked by their total scores. Only the top 20 form The A-List. **************************************************************
Am Law 100
Description: ALM Media’s definitive ranking of America's top 100 revenue grossing law firms. The Am Law 100, which is published annually in the month of May, includes:
Beginning in 2005, the report was expanded to include Value per Lawyer.This figure calculated by dividing the combined compensation of all partners by the total number of lawyers. That figure is then divided by $10 million to calculate how many lawyers it takes to generate that amount. As a result, the survey now includes the following new data points:
Methodology/Sources: With the exception of firm address and other contact information, the data in the Am Law 100 spreadsheet is derived from the May issue of The American Lawyer. Below is the methodology summary, which appeared in the issue. How The American Lawyer Reports Law Firm Financials - The Am Law 100 is reported by staff members at ALM's publications throughout the United States, including The American Lawyer, the Connecticut Law Tribune, Daily Business Review (Miami), Fulton County Daily Report (Atlanta), The Legal Intelligencer (Philadelphia), Legal Times (Washington, D.C.), New Jersey Law Journal, New York Law Journal, The Recorder (San Francisco), and Texas Lawyer. Most law firms provide their financials voluntarily for this report. Some refuse to cooperate, so reporters call partners and calculate revenue and profits. But all data - whether or not it comes officially from the firm - is investigated by the reporters. In the event that an error in reporting is discovered, The American Lawyer will correct the numbers and base the percentage changes in future years on restated numbers. Definitions: Gross Revenue is fee income from legal work only. It does not include disbursements or income from nonlegal ancillary businesses. In all cases, the revenue and profit figures listed are for the firm's most recently completed fiscal year. Most Am Law firms are on a calendar fiscal year. Net is compensation paid to equity partners. Equity Partners are those who file a Schedule K-1 tax form and receive no more than half their compensation on a fixed-income basis. Nonequity Partners are those who receive more than half their compensation on a fixed basis. Total Full-Time Equivalent Lawyers for firms whose fiscal year ends after August 31, 2008, are provided as of that date. If the firm's fiscal year ended between March 31 and August 31, 2008, we ask for the head count at the end of the firm's fiscal year. This is intended to exclude first-year associates, who typically start in the fall but take several months to produce revenue. To ensure that profits per partner and leverage data are consistent, partners without equity shares in the firm's profits (or who do not have more than a partial equity share in the firm's profits) are not counted as partners. Retired partners and of counsel are not counted as partners, nor are payments made to them counted in net operating income. Calculations:
Our Conventions We round gross revenue and net operating income to the nearest $500,000. Profits per partner, revenue per lawyer, and compensation–all partners are rounded to the nearest $5,000. Firms that are tied in the rankings are listed in alphabetical order. Designation of Regions and Markets The American Lawyer used the following classifications for identifying the geographical concentration of a firm's offices and attorneys:
**************************************************************
Am Law 200
Description: ALM Media’s definitive ranking of America's top 200 revenue grossing law firms. The Am Law 200, which is published annually in the month of June, includes:
Beginning in 2005, the report was expanded to include Value per Lawyer.This figure is calculated by dividing the combined compensation of all partners by the total number of lawyers. That figure is then divided by $10 million to calculate how many lawyers it takes to generate that amount. As a result, the survey now includes the following new data points:
Methodology/Sources: With the exception of firm address and other contact information, the data in the Am Law 200 spreadsheet is derived from the June issue of The American Lawyer. Below is the methodology summary, which appeared in the issue. How The American Lawyer Reports Law Firm Financials - The Am Law 200 is reported by staff members at ALM's publications throughout the United States, including The American Lawyer, the Connecticut Law Tribune, Daily Business Review (Miami), Fulton County Daily Report (Atlanta), The Legal Intelligencer (Philadelphia), Legal Times (Washington, D.C.), New Jersey Law Journal, New York Law Journal, The Recorder (San Francisco), and Texas Lawyer. Most law firms provide their financials voluntarily for this report. Some refuse to cooperate, so reporters call partners and calculate revenue and profits. But all data--whether it comes officially from the firm or not--is investigated by the reporters. In the event that an error in reporting is discovered, The American Lawyer will correct the numbers and base the percentage changes in future years on restated numbers. Definitions: Gross Revenue is fee income from legal work only. It does not include disbursements or income from nonlegal ancillary businesses. In all cases, the revenue and profit figures listed are for the firm's most recently completed fiscal year. Most Am Law firms are on a calendar fiscal year. Net is compensation paid to equity partners. Equity Partners are those who file a Schedule K-1 tax form and receive no more than half their compensation on a fixed-income basis. Nonequity Partners are those who receive more than half their compensation on a fixed basis. Firm Size: Total Full-Time Equivalent Lawyers for firms whose fiscal year ends after August 31 are provided as of that date. If the firm's fiscal year ended between March 31 and August 31 we ask for the head count at the end of the firm's fiscal year. We asked for full-time equivalent lawyer numbers, which were rounded to the nearest whole number. Calculations:
Firms that tied in the rankings are listed alphabetically Designation of Regions and Markets The American Lawyer used the following classifications for identifying the geographical concentration of a firm's offices and attorneys:
***************************************************************
AmLaw Tech Survey
Description: The annual AmLaw Tech Survey queries CIOs and IT directors from AmLaw 200 firms on a variety of technology-related issues including product preferences for hardware and software, planning and investment, capital and operating expenses, and IT staffing and compensation. Data is available for years 1998 - 2009 to allow for comparison, however, due to modifications made to the questionnaire over time, some questions will not have responses for all years. Methodology/Sources: The AmLaw Tech Survey is conducted annually in the summer by the editorial research staff of The American Lawyer. Some percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Others may exceed 100 percent because firms were allowed to select multiple responses. In most cases, where specific products are referenced, the vendor’s name precedes the product unless otherwise noted. **************************************************************************
Annual Compensation Survey for Paralegals/Legal Assistants, & Managers
Description: The Annual Compensation Survey for Paralegals/Legal Assistants and Managers (published annually in association with the International Paralegal Management Association [IPMA]), provides a wealth of data for law firms and law departments to benchmark paralegal compensation and management practice. The Survey reports on 11 distinct paralegal positions from the most senior Paralegal Manager to Clerk. This essential guide to paralegal compensation will help your organization attract, motivate, and retain talented people while still controlling costs. Methodology: An invitation to participate was sent to a selected group of organizations, which include IPMA members; past participants and purchasers of ALM Legal Intelligence surveys and products; organizations that have had prior contact with ALM; and members from the Association of Legal Administrators. Each survey was carefully reviewed prior to keypunching, with follow-up contact made for further clarification when necessary. *****************************************************************
Arbitration Scorecard
Description: A listing of international arbitrations active in 2007-2008. Investment treaty arbitrations listed are worth at least $100 million and contract arbitrations listed are worth at least $500 million. Methodology/Sources: The 2009 Arbitration Scorecard covers international arbitrations (not limited to Europe) that were active in the years 2007 and 2008. Because many arbitrations are confidential, neither list is comprehensive. Many big cases may enter the public domain through collateral litigation, press coverage, or securities disclosure. However, some large arbitrations remain undisclosed because the parties are nonpublic, the risk of liability is spread among members of a consortium, or the company is so large that it contends the dispute is immaterial. Information is primarily supplied by lawyers involved in the cases, supplemented in some cases by arbitration or court papers, securities disclosures, and media reports. In many cases we have had to rely on information from only one side in the dispute, and we were not able to obtain a response from the other side in all cases. The cooperating lawyers are not identified. The "amount in controversy" in a case represents the sum of claims and counterclaims, and is necessarily and approximation. All amounts are expressed in U.S. dollars. Such a survey inevitably involves judgment calls. The contract arbitration list includes three cases founded on investment legislation. A fourth case dropped out because it did not meet our value threshold of $500 million for commercial disputes. Some state-investor disputes were similarly excluded because they were founded upon contracts, and did not meet our value threshold. **************************************************************************
Associate Technology Survey
Description: The technology rankings of the Midlevel Associates Survey, conducted by the research staff of The American Lawyer. Data includes:
Methodology/Sources: As part of The American Lawyer's annual Midlevel Associates Survey midlevel (third-, fourth-, and fifth-year) associates were asked to rate their firms' technology on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) in four categories: the overall quality of the firm's technology, how well they felt they were trained, their estimation of the firm's technical support, and how successfully they thought the firm deployed technology on behalf of its clients. The overall score is based on the average of the scores for the four questions; the Associate Technology Survey rankings are based on the overall score. **************************************************************************
Bankruptcy Billing Rates
Description: The Bankruptcy Billing Rates project contains more than 13,000 rates charged in corporate restructurings by attorneys and staff practicing in 35 states and 24 countries. These rates were culled exclusively from court documents submitted to the nation's two busiest bankruptcy courts the Southern District of NY and Delaware by firms seeking compensation for legal work done in Chapter 11 cases filed between Aug. 1 2008, and Aug. 31, 2009. Excluded is General Motors Case No. 09-50026 for which firms did not file for compensation with the court until after our research was completed. Methodology/Sources: Because the U.S. bankruptcy code requires that lawyers attest to their usual and customary hourly billing rates, we view the rates as reliable. The rates offer a snapshot of what lawyers were charging in 2008 and 2009. Sometimes firms offer reduced rates and we account for the differences wherever identifiable. Lawyers often have left the firms where they are listed or have since made partner or retired. Because firms adjust their rates at different times throughout the year, the listed hourly rate may not be current with the rates being charged by the date of publication. Some of the rates indicated may be a blended rate, although every effort has been made to avoid using blended rates. If court papers indicated a range of hourly rates for an attorney, the highest rate available was used. We also included practice length, as reported to the court or found on firm Web sites. However, the attorneys may actually have more experience (i.e. the reported length may refer only to a specific jurisdiction), which is why we also included law school graduation year. The spelling of names, use of initials, attorney title and home office location were entered in accordance with biographical information reported to the courts and available on firm Web sites, Martindale-Hubbell's list of attorneys and other professional websites. *****************************************************************
Big Deals and Big Suits
Description: Track the firms and lawyers involved in the "hottest" deals and suits, from the monthly "Big Deals" and "Big Suits" departments published in The American Lawyer. ALM Legal Intelligence Research staff have identified the key components of each deal and suit covered, to allow you to see who has represented the parties in the most significant deals and lawsuits handled by the major U.S., Canadian and U.K. firms. Includes:
Methodology/Sources: "Big Deals" and "Big Suits" are monthly columns in The American Lawyer that highlight the biggest transactions and litigation activities in the news. Journalists report the news, and the ALM Legal Intelligence staff identifies the key components of each deal and suit reported, including: type of transaction; parties involved; firms representing each side; attorneys for each counsel including in-house counsel; value or brief description of the transaction. Firms included are the major U.S., Canadian, and U.K. firms. Starting in 2010, cases listed in Big Deals and Big Suits are supplemented with information about less high-profile cases which are gathered by the following sources:
*****************************************************************
Changes in Law Firm Staffing Structure
Description: The economic downturn is affecting all industries, including law. The 2010 Changes in Law Firm Staffing Structure report examine AmLaw 200-size firms’ responses to the changing legal landscape. Find out:
…and whether there is a fundamental shift in the economic and staffing model of law firms. Methodology/Sources: We conducted in-depth interviews with decision-makers in AmLaw 100 and 200 firms around the country, among them Chief Operating Officers, Executive Directors, Chief Human Resources Officers, Chief Marketing Officers, Chief Talent Officers, Directors of Business Development as well as Directors of Recruitment and Professional Development. The semi-structured interviews lasted between 30 minutes and 1 hour 30 minutes and were held in February and March 2010. *****************************************************************
Corporate Representation (Who Counsels Who)
Description: Starting in 2005, all information from the Who Counsels Who surveys conducted by ALM's publications for the public and private companies was combined into one product. Added to this is additional representation information culled from all of ALM's magazines and newspapers-about 30 in all. Main categories include, but are not limited to:
Methodology/Sources: The information in this spreadsheet comes from a variety of sources and is compiled by ALM Legal Intelligence staff. The majority of the information is culled from surveys and reports published in ALM Media’s magazines and newspapers. Examples include: Who Counsels Corporate America (Corporate Counsel, National Law Journal), an annual list, and the monthly “Big Deals” and “Big Suits” columns from The American Lawyer. Added to this are the non-annual lists on, for instance, private equity and LBO representation, as well as information from many law firm press releases. *****************************************************************
Corporate Scorecard
Description: Based on The American Lawyer's Corporate Scorecard, which is published annually in April, this report details the performance of the U.S. law firms with the most active corporate finance and capital markets practices. Firms are ranked on both the number and value of the deals handled in specific transactional areas, including Asset-Backed Securities, Bankruptcy, Equities, High-Yield Debt, Investment-Grade Debt, IPOs, Mergers Acquisitions, Mortgage-Backed Securities, Municipal Bonds, Private Equity, Project Financing, REIT Debt, and REIT Equities. Contact information is also included for the Marketing Director of each firm listed in the report. Methodology/Sources: The American Lawyer's Corporate Scorecard tracks the transactional practices of leading firms in corporate finance in a series of subspecialties. Unless otherwise noted, data includes only public, registered, underwritten offerings or deals transacted in the previous calendar year, including firmly underwritten rule 144a transactions, but not pure private placements or the filing of shelf registrations. Values are as of February of the current year, unless otherwise noted. All of the charts have firm rankings based on the dollar volume or value of the transactions, and all of the charts except for bankruptcy, bankruptcy emergences, and biggest project finance also have additional rankings based on the number of issues or deals. The data for Corporate Scorecard comes from the following information suppliers: BankruptcyData.com provided bankruptcy data; Dealogic provided project finance data; Mergermarket provided private equity data; Thomson Reuters provided all other data. Mergers and Acquisitions: Data includes deals announced but not necessarily completed in the previous year that are valued at $100 million or more, including debt. (Debt is not included in valuations of financial companies, including banks, securities brokerage firms, credit institutions, insurance companies, and leasing companies). Deals must involve at least one U.S.-based target, acquiror, or parent company. Transactions include asset sales, spin-offs, and private equity deals. Equity carve-outs, exchange offers, and stake repurchases are not included. In order to receive credit for a deal on the counsel to principal chart, the law firm must have been counsel to at least one target, acquiror, investor, seller, parent, management group, shareholder group, or special committee. The counsel to principal chart is ranked by value of deals. The counsel to investment adviser chart is ranked by number of deals. Private Equity: Data includes deals with a North American-based target that were announced but not necessarily completed in the previous year that are valued at $100 million or more, including debt. Only counsel to bidders that billed more than $100,000 are given credit. A firm's involvement is prorated, depending on its role. Equities: Data includes worldwide issues by U.S. corporations, including secondaries, convertible bonds, and convertible and nonconvertible preferred stock. It excludes asset-backed securities and REITs. IPOs: Data includes offerings by U.S. and foreign corporations in the U.S. marketplace. Corporate Debt: Investment-grade debt includes securities with a Standard & Poor's rating equal to or greater than BBB- and a Moody's rating equal to or greater than Baa3, and split junk-rated securities. High-yield debt includes securities with an S&P rating equal to or less than BB+ and a Moody's rating equal to or less than Ba1, but excludes split junk-rated securities. Securities not rated by either agency are assumed to be high-yield. Both areas exclude certificates of deposit, general term notes, and issues by federal credit agencies, sovereigns, and national governments. Asset- and Mortgage-backed Securities: Mortgage-backed securities include commercial and residential offerings. When multiple classes of securities are issued together with one legal adviser, they are counted as a single offering. Separate legal advisers are credited with the separate securities they handled. Municipal Bonds: Data is based on long-term municipal new issues underwritten in the previous calendar year. Short-term, preliminary, and private placement issues are not included. Project Finance: Data is based on deals signed and funded in the previous calendar year and includes only nonrecourse and limited recourse facilities. Firms are credited for advising borrowers, concession awarders, commercial lenders, multilateral lenders, export credit agencies, guarantors, and divestors. REITs: Data includes equities and debt offerings by real estate investment trusts. Bankuptcy: The asset figures used to determine the largest bankruptcies are from the companies' most recently filed annual reports prior to filing under Chapter 11. **********************************************************************
Diversity Scorecard
Description: Based on the survey published every spring by the Minority Law Journal, The Diversity Scorecard contains detailed information on minority legal staffing levels at law firms in the NLJ 250 and Am Law 200. This report also includes supplemental data that is not published by the MLJ, including the number of women attorneys employed at these firms (to appear in June 2009). Key data points include:
Methodology/Sources: The Minority Law Journal surveyed 252 of the country’s largest and highest-grossing firms, including the 250 biggest firms as ranked by The National Law Journal (with the exception of Adorno & Yoss), plus two included in The American Lawyer’s Am Law 200 but not in the NLJ 250 (the two publications are Minority Law Journal siblings). All told, 210 firms reported ethnic data. Firms are identified by the office with the largest concentration of attorneys. If a firm has no more than 45 percent of its attorneys in one region, it is considered national. If more than 40 percent of the attorneys are located outside the United States, the firm is designated international. Partner statistics include both equity and non-equity partners. Non-partner figures include associates as well as special counsel, of counsel, and other staff attorneys. We do not include contract attorneys. The heading "other minority" includes Native Americans and those attorneys who said they were multiracial. Unless noted otherwise, all figures are as of September 30, 2008. In our view, ethnic diversity is defined primarily in American terms. When you ask whether a firm is achieving ethnic diversity, you’re asking how well it’s doing in hiring minority Americans. In the past, some firms had trouble accurately reporting the citizenship of all their attorneys. For this reason, we now ask firms to count only the minority attorneys working in U.S. offices. Dividing that number by the number of all attorneys a firm employs in the United States gives us the percentage of a firm’s U.S. attorneys who are members of ethnic minorities. In the past, rankings were based only on the minority percentage of all U.S. attorneys. This year we’ve revised our rankings to stress the importance of hiring and promoting minority attorneys to partnership positions. Our new diversity score was created by adding the minority percentage of all U.S. attorneys at the firms surveyed to the minority percentage of all U.S. partners at those firms. ************************************************************************
Florida Billing Survey
Description: The Daily Business Review's annual survey of the billing rates of Florida law firms. The survey provides the hourly rates of 145 Florida attorneys, listed by name, firm, title and city. Methodology/Sources: The hourly billing rates in the Florida Billing Survey, published by ALM’s (formerly ALM) newspaper in Miami, the Daily Business Review, were culled from a variety of sources, including attorney fee petitions filed in federal and state courts between August 2008 and September 2009. In addition, the Daily Business Review examined bills submitted to state agencies by law firms. In some cases, the listed rates reflect what law firms reported they charge. These listed rates do not necessarily indicate what attorneys actually were paid for their work, but show only what these lawyers and law firms sought to charge for a specific case. Rates may have increased since these disclosures were filed. The listed rates are for bankruptcy, commercial litigation and other types of civil legal services. Rates for criminal defense attorneys were not collected. The rates listed in these charts are not meant to be a complete survey of hourly rates for all firms and attorneys in South Florida, nor can The Daily Business Review say whether these are typical rates for the individual lawyers and firms that are listed, nor what kind of fee arrangements these lawyers and firms make. For instance, it is common in fraud cases for court-appointed receivers to work for reduced hourly rates. The data is organized by law firm and arranged in alphabetical order. The chart shows rates for partners and ranges for associates and paraprofessionals. If a partner offered more than one rate or a range, the highest rate was used. In fee petitions, some law firms disclose a range of hourly rates for all attorneys in the firm but others do not. The listed range represents the highest and lowest rates that could be found in court documents for a firm. Rate ranges for some firms may be incomplete. **********************************************************************
GC Compensation Survey
Description: Corporate Counsel Magazine's annual salary survey of the 100 highest paid General Counsel at major corporations. The survey, which appears each year in the August issue, includes the name, rank, salary, bonus, and non-equity incentive compensation. Methodology/Sources: By law, public companies must disclose the compensation packages for their CEOs and their four other highest-paid executives in the annual proxy statements they file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. General Counsel are frequently among the top highest-paid executives whose pay packages must be disclosed. Corporate Counsel magazine combs through Fortune 500 companies’ proxies in order to compile the list. They then rank the 100 best-paid according to cash compensation, which includes salary ,bonus and non-equity incentive compensation (a column added two years ago on the proxy statement in which companies record bonuses for hitting performance targets). Data in the spreadsheet also includes stock and option awards. This compensation is not exhaustive. Some well-paid top legal officers do not make the list simply because the five highest-paid executives earn more than the GC. Others don't make the list because their company filed its proxy statement after May 31, and Corporate Counsel couldn't research it because of their publishing deadline. Businesses in bankruptcy or have merged in the past year may not file proxies. And Fortune 500 corporations that are not publicly traded, such as insurance companies, don't file proxy statements with the SEC. Several new SEC rules were enacted between the 2006 and 2007 reports – there was a change in how bonuses are reported, in order to achieve more transparency. Bonuses not tied to performance goals go in the traditional bonus column. For our chart and rankings, we've combined both types of bonuses in one column labeled "Bonus/Non¬equity Incentive Compensation." We also note restricted stock grants, option grants, and cash-outs for the top 100. **********************************************************************
Global 100
Description: The definitive ranking of the world's largest law firms. The report includes:
Methodology/Sources: The Global 100 charts rank the world’s largest law firms by revenue, head count, and profits per partner. The charts were compiled by The American Lawyer in cooperation with Legal Week in London. Though non-U.S. firms differ in structure from American law firms, a variety of steps were taken to level the playing field. A total of 115 firms were included on the 2009 Global 100 charts. The Global 100 chart ranks firms by gross revenue for their most recently completed fiscal year. Revenue and revenue per lawyer figures for U.S.–based law firms were obtained from The Am Law 100, except where otherwise noted. Revenue figures for law firms in Europe were from Legal Week. Australian and Canadian firms were surveyed by The American Lawyer. Revenue figures for all non-U.S. firms were converted to dollars using the average annual conversion rate as published by the U.S. Federal Reserve. Revenue figures are rounded to the nearest $500,000. The Global 100 by Most Lawyers chart ranks firms by the average number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) lawyers at the firm in its most recent fiscal year. Most of the firms on this chart, but not all, qualified for the Most Revenue chart. Firms are identified as “international” if 40 percent or more of their lawyers work outside their home country. Firms identified as “national” have no more than 45 percent of their lawyers located in one region of their home country. The geographic breakdown comes from the National Law Journal survey of the 250 largest U.S. firms (the NLJ 250), or from the firm’s Web site. The Global 100 by Profits Per Partner: Only firms included on either the Most Revenue or Most Lawyers charts qualify for this chart, in which firms were ranked by profits per equity partner for the most recent fiscal year. Profits per equity partner figures are rounded to the nearest $5,000. **********************************************************************
In-House Law Departments
Description: This best-selling Guide includes information on General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel at the Fortune® 500, including contact and biographical information. Also provided are the Chief In-House Counsel for the following practice areas:
The report also provides the General Counsel's Go-To Law Firms® for each practice area. Methodology/Sources: We gathered data on each company's primary law firms first by surveys sent to General Counsel at each of the top 500 companies and second through research in various key databases such as ALM Legal Intelligence, LitigationMonitor™, Westlaw®, and others. Criteria for selection as a Go-To Law Firm were: (1) law firms that were named as a "primary law firm" by a General Counsel at a top 500 company in response to our survey [defined on the survey as "the firms that are on the company's preferred list; the 'go-to law firms' for a specific practice area; firms that handled the most important cases in the previous year; firms used most often; and/or firms with the most billings"]; or (2) law firms that were either utilized two or more times in the practice area specified since 2007 and/or counseled the client with respect to a significant transaction. Data included in this guide is as of November 2009. Please note that companies may have responded with additional data after the submission due date. This data will be included in upcoming publications and/or online if applicable. Additionally, although the research group made every effort to provide accurate data, we assume no responsibility for errors in the data. Please note that the data from this guide is also available in additional formats:
This guide should serve to increase the channels of communication among in-house counsel, and between in-house and outside counsel. Use this as a resource to enhance your outside counsel selection process, benchmark current and prospective outside counsel, and better understand a particular firm's expertise. **********************************************************************
In-House Law Departments at the Leading Financial Services Companies
Description: The second edition of this guide to the Go-To law firms of General Counsel at US and international financial services companies includes contact information, number of employees, law department size, indexes to help identify go-to law firms, and top legal officers. In-house counsel information is also listed by practice areas, including:
Methodology/Sources: Information on each company’s primary law firms was first gathered via surveys sent to General Counsel at U.S. and international financial services companies and second through research in various resources including public records, publications and commercial databases. Financial and biographical data for each of the companies listed was gathered from a variety of publicly available resources. Criteria for selection as a Go-To Law Firm were: (1) Law firms that were named as a “primary law firm” by a general counsel at a financial services company in response to the survey. The survey defined a primary law firm as: the firms that are on the company’s preferred list; the ‘go-to’ law firms for a specific practice area; firms that handled the most important cases the prior year; firms used most often; and/or firms with the most billings. Or, (2) firms that since 2005 were utilized two or more times in the practice area specified, consistently used in each practice area since 2002, or counseled the client with respect to a major transaction as featured in publications such as The American Lawyer. **********************************************************************
In-House Law Departments at the Leading Technology Companies
Description: This best-selling Guide includes information on:
Methodology/Sources: HOW IS A FIRM SELECTED AS A GO-TO LAW FIRM ®?Data was gathered on each company’s primary law firms first by surveys sent to General Counsel at each of the technology companies and second through research in various key databases such as Litigation Monitor™, LIVEDGAR®, Westlaw®, USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office), and others. Criteria for selection as a Go-To Law Firm were: (1) law firms that were named as a "primary law firm" by a General Counsel at a leading technology company in response to our survey [defined on the survey as “the firms that are on the company’s preferred list; the ‘go-to law firms’ for a specific practice area; firms that handled the most important cases in the previous year; firms used most often; and/or firms with the most billings”]; or (2) firms that were either utilized multiple times in a practice area since 2006 and/or counseled the client with respect to a significant transaction. Data included in this guide is as of February 2008. Note that companies may have responded with additional data after the submission due date. *****************************************************************
In-House Tech Survey
Description: The complete results of Corporate Counsel’s survey of legal department technology. Information includes:
Methodology/Sources: Corporate Counsel magazine invited Fortune 500 companies to take part in a survey of the technology used in corporate law departments.Corporate Counsel asked respondents about hardware, software, intranets, extranets, electronic billing, security policies, and wireless technologies, and how the department works with outside counsel in sharing information electronically. *****************************************************************
Lateral Partner Moves
Description: The Lateral Partner Moves Database offers vital information on partner movement into and out of the nation's largest and most successful law firms. This crucial indication of firm strengths, weaknesses and changes of emphasis contains the following items for each entry:
Beginning in 2000, The American Lawyer began tracking lateral partner moves in and out of Am Law 200 firms and publishing an annual report. In 2004, in addition to archiving the data from the magazine's annual report, ALM Legal Intelligence began supplementing this data with other published reports of lateral partner moves from other large U.S. and non-U.S. firms, in addition to The Am Law 200. The spreadsheet product is updated monthly. Methodology/Sources: The American Lawyer's annual Lateral Partner Survey report (traditionally published in their February issue, covering lateral moves for the previous year), other legal industry publications, and firm Web sites and press releases. **************************************************************************
Law Department Compensation Benchmarking Survey
Description: The Law Department Compensation Benchmarking Survey is the most comprehensive analytical resource for reviewing and setting law department compensation. The Survey collects data on salary, bonus, total cash and stock options for nine in-house positions. The Survey will help you measure your department against comparable departments and will provide a meaningful baseline against which to evaluate the equity and competitiveness of the compensation system you currently use. Published annually, the Law Department Compensation Benchmarking Survey serves as a companion study to the Law Department Metrics Benchmarking Survey. Methodology: This study is undertaken annually. An invitation to participate was sent to a selected group of organizations. These are companies that are past participants and purchasers of ALM Legal Intelligence surveys and products, as well as companies that have had prior contact with ALM. We also utilized various law department leadership mailing lists. *****************************************************************
Law Department Legal Outsourcing Study
Description: ALM Legal Intelligence is pleased to present the Law Department Legal Outsourcing Study – examining trends in outsourcing legal matters within corporate law departments. Find out who the key decision makers are, average budget for legal spend, how resources are allocated among various legal sectors, and the extent to which companies catalogue and analyze value and service received from external law firms. **************************************************************************
Law Department Metrics Benchmarking Survey
Description: Managing a law department in today's business environment is more challenging than ever before. Corporate management is demanding more detailed benchmarking data and closely scrutinizing all aspects of law department performance. The Law Department Metrics Benchmarking Survey examines law department operations and reports on critical measurements of structure and performance, including staffing, expenditures, outside counsel management, and operations and functions. The Survey makes it easy to compare your law department to similar departments by industry, sales revenue, and department size. Published annually, the Law Department Metrics Benchmarking Survey serves as a companion study to the Law Department Compensation Benchmarking Survey. Methodology: The Law Department Metrics Benchmarking Survey presents analysis by revenue, number of employees served by the law department, size of law department, and industry, as appropriate, for the previous fiscal year. Expenses are presented on a per lawyer and per legal service provider basis. (A legal service provider is determined by counting each lawyer as one legal service provider, and each paralegal as one-half legal service provider.) The majority of respondents provided both detailed and total expenses, others provided only limited detail and incomplete totals. Therefore, the number of respondents may differ from analysis to analysis. ************************************************
Law Firm Billing Rates and Practices
Description: ALM Legal Intelligence has conducted a landmark study of the billing rates and alternative billing practices of lawyers in small and midsize firms and solo practices. The report provides a cross section of billing data segmented by:
The report provides valuable benchmarks for lawyers to assess the billing profiles of their competitors, and for corporate counsel to evaluate billing rates across specific segments of the legal market. ************************************************
Law Firm Business Development Practices Survey
Description: In the report of this fourth annual survey, ALM Legal Intelligence continues to track trends in business development within law firms. Benchmarking information includes budgets, staffing, organizational structure, resources, revenue and compensation. This year’s survey also asked professionals about the effects of the economic downturn on their law firm’s business development efforts. The report also queries firms about the pervasiveness and effectiveness of several popular business development strategies: client interviews and surveys, sales training for lawyers, and client service teams. ************************************************************************** Description: ALM Legal Intelligence has conducted a survey among law department heads about the most salient factors in choosing an outside law firm. We invited participation from those who have significant input into the law firm hiring process. Methodology: The survey was conducted between May 26, 2010 and June 23, 2010 by means of a confidential, web-based questionnaire. A survey invitation was sent to professionals in law departments who have input into the outside counsel hiring process. Respondent job titles include General Counsel, Associate General Counsel, Staff Attorney, Vice President of Legal, Practice Area Head, Deputy General Counsel and more. All have at least some involvement in the decision-making process of hiring law firms, including determining the need, recommending or evaluating law firms, and authorizing expenditures. **************************************************************************
Law Firm Outsourcing Survey
Methodology: The 2010 Law Department Outsourcing Study examines trends in outsourcing within law firms. The purpose of the survey is to examine firms’ experiences and uncover insights about outsourcing programs. The report focuses on outsourced legal work as well as operational and administrative functions, including work related to document management, IT support and finances. Find out who the key decision makers are, how resources are allocated among various legal sectors, what drives firms to outsourcing, whether firms take advantage of international alliances, and other hot button issues. **************************************************************************
Law Librarian Survey
Description: The Law Librarians' Survey surveys the head librarians of the Am Law 200. The report includes: average salaries for law librarians, average library expenses, librarian satisfaction with major information providers, staffing, resources, and information on finances for the libraries of the nations largest law firms. Methodology: The Law Librarians' Survey is conducted annually in the spring by The American Lawyer's research staff. Head librarians at Am Law 200 firms are surveyed about the librarians' responsibilities and the library's budget, resources, and staffing. Some percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. Others may exceed 100 percent because firms were allowed to select multiple responses. Not all firms answered all questions. For per-lawyer calculations, head counts from the most recent Am Law 200 data are used. ************************************************
Law School Hiring Survey
Description: Based on data collected in the 2009 NLJ 250 survey, this report shows where the largest U.S. law firms are hiring their first-year associates. Included is the list of law schools whose 2009 graduate classes were most heavily recruited into NLJ 250 firms. Methodology/Sources: As part of its annual NLJ 250 survey, the National Law Journal sent surveys to approximately 300 law firms, asking them to supply information about which law schools they hired associates from. The data includes the law firm, schools from which they hired associates, and the number hired from each school. In addition, this product includes the number of associates promoted to partner in 2009 at each participating law firm. ************************************************
Legal Technology Survey
Description: Selected results of Corporate Counsel Magazine's survey of legal department technology. Information includes:
**************************************************************************
Legal Times 150
Description: Legal Times' annual survey of the largest law firms in the Washington D.C. area includes number of lawyers, number of partners, percent change from previous year, and expected number of associates. Methodology/Sources: For more than 30 years, Legal Times has surveyed Washington-area law firms about their lawyer head count. In the 2009 Legal Times 150 survey, firms were asked to provide data for each office in the Washington metropolitan area—including the District of Columbia, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland, and Arlington and Fairfax counties and the cities of Alexandria and Falls Church in Virginia. The head count numbers are as of April 1, 2009. They do not include contract attorneys, patent agents or summer associates. And the firms were asked to tally full-time equivalents. Mari Mullane, a former Legal Times staffer, helped collect the numbers. National Law Journal reporters also contacted firms to obtain and verify the data. **************************************************************************
LTN Technology Vendor Satisfaction Survey
Description: ALM Legal Intelligence has conducted a survey of legal technology-based products and services (e.g., software, web-based tools, etc.) that are developed for or commonly used in law firms. We invited participation from anyone in the firm who has significant input into the technology purchasing process. This includes managing partners, directors and administrators involved in the decision process. The purpose of the survey is to examine firms’ usage of and satisfaction with technology across 25 different product categories. This report focuses on usage and satisfaction scores by vendor per category. Methodology: The survey was conducted between January 29, 2010 and April 9, 2010 by means of a confidential, web-based questionnaire. A survey invitation was sent to professionals in law firms who have input into the technology purchasing process. More than 600 people responded. ************************************************
Litigation Department of the Year
Description: ALM's fifth Litigation Department of the Year competition, which is published biennially in the month of January, includes the following information:
Methodology: Every firm in the Am Law 200 was invited to report on litigation activities in a 19-month period from January 1, 2008-July 31, 2009. In addition to the overall contest; a short questionnaire was included with each submission to serve as a benchmarking survey centered on each firm’s litigation practice. The information presented here is the results of the survey as voluntarily reported by the individual firms. In certain instances, numbers were adjusted for uniform or corrective purposes. Cells are listed as "N/A", where the firm decided not to disclose any information. ************************************************
Midlevel Associate Survey
Description: The American Lawyer’s annual survey measuring the satisfaction of third-, fourth-, and fifth-year associates employed by the nation’s top law firms. Firms are scored based on associate responses to 12 questions, which assess the firm’s qualities, including interest and satisfaction with the work; benefits and compensation; relations between associates and partners; training and guidance; openness about finances and strategies; billable hours policies; ; the firm’s attitude toward pro bono work; and the likelihood that associates will be at the firm in two years. Methodology/Sources: For a firm to be included in the National Rankings chart, The American Lawyer must receive ten or more completed surveys from a firm's midlevel associates (five or more per city for the city charts). "Midlevels" includes third-, fourth-, and fifth-year associates. An individual firm’s response rate is based on the number of returns out of the surveys distributed. A firm can choose which branch offices take part, so the number of eligible midlevels does not always reflect the size of midlevel classes firmwide. Scores are based on a 1-to-5 scale, with 1 being the lowest, and 5 the highest. A firm's national score is the average of its responses, which collectively summarize the firm's qualities, including the interest and satisfaction levels of work; benefits and compensation; relations between associates and partners; training and guidance; openness about finances and strategies; billable hours policy; and the likelihood of the associate being at the firm in two years. All of a firm's responses are used to calculate the overall average, the basis for the rankings. For calculations of average hours billed, hours worked, base salary, or bonus, however, part-time associates were excluded. ************************************************
NLJ 250
Description: The NLJ 250 contains key information about the size of the nation's largest law firms. The spreadsheet includes:
Methodology/Sources: This is the National Law Journal’s 32nd annual survey of the nation's 250 largest law firms covering the period from Oct. 1, 2008, to Sept. 30, 2009. The NLJ sent surveys to approximately 300 law firms to determine the 250 largest. Eligibility is based on a firm's total number of attorneys, not including contract or temporary attorneys. . In order to qualify, a firm must have employed more lawyers based in the U.S. than in any other single country. Firms are ranked by the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) attorneys rather than just full-time attorneys. In some cases, due to rounding, this calculation resulted in slightly higher or lower numbers than the figures submitted by the law firms. In case of a tie, firms are ranked by the actual number of FTE attorneys before rounding, and then on the total number of partners, and then the number of equity partners. The city listed under the firm name is the firm's principal or largest office. "Number of attorneys" reflects permanent, FTE attorneys. "Other" attorneys includes non-partner, non-associate lawyers at the firm, e.g., counsel, of counsel, senior counsel and staff attorneys. "Starting salary" lists the base salary for a first-year associate. In some firms, this varies by office. This year, we gave law firms a one-time opportunity to restate their numbers for the previous year, in order to reconcile any data discrepancies. The "Branch Offices" section lists the total number of attorneys in each city where the firm has offices. In some instances, firms did not provide breakdowns, such as partners and associates data, for their total number of attorneys. In those cases, firms marked with an asterisk have data obtained from the National Association for Law Placement online 2009/2010 Directory of Legal Employers. ************************************************
NLJ Billing Survey
Description: The National Law Journal's survey of billing rates of the largest U.S. law firms provides the High and Low rates for partners and associates. Starting in 2007, associate class billing data was added to the report from those firms that establish rates based on associate class. The survey results also include:
Methodology/Sources: The National Law Journal asked respondents to its annual survey of the nation''s largest law firms (the NLJ 250) to provide a range of hourly billing rates for partners and associates. The firms that supplied this information—including some firms not in the NLJ 250*—are listed below in alphabetical order. Firms were also asked to provide average and median billing rates, and several complied. The data includes total number of attorneys at the firm, and the city of the firm''s principal or largest office. The associate class chart includes a sampling of hourly rates charged by law firms that establish billing rates based on associate class. Data for variations and alternatives to hourly billing rates is included where provided by responding firms. Firms were asked to differentiate between variations on the traditional billable hour (e.g., discounted and blended hourly rates) and true alternatives to the billable hour (e.g., fixed or flat fees, contingency fees, hybrid fees and retrospective fees based on value). The percentages given denote the estimated portions of the firms' revenues obtained through each of these two categories. * Not all firms opt to report billing information ************************************************
NLJ Staffing Survey
Description: Derived from the National Law Journal’s NLJ 250 Survey, this data is non-published information on the staffing levels of the top 250 law firms in the U.S. and includes:
Methodology/Sources: As a part of the annual NLJ 250 survey, the National Law Journal sent surveys to approximately 300 law firms and solicited survey information about staffing patterns and procedures. Eligibility is based on a firm's total number of attorneys, not including contract or temporary attorneys. The cutoff point is 165 lawyers. Also, a firm must have more lawyers based in the United States than in any other single country to be considered. Firms are ranked by the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) attorneys, rather than just full-time attorneys. **************************************************************************
NYLJ 100
Description: New York Law Journal's survey of the largest firms in New York State including number of lawyers, equity partners, associates, and branch offices. Methodology/Sources: The NYLJ 100 ranks the 100 largest private law offices in the state of New York. (Attorney numbers for public law offices, such as those of the Corporation Counsel, Attorney General and U.S. and District Attorneys, are listed in separate charts.) Every private law office in the state is considered, irrespective of where the firm is headquartered or whether it claims a home office. Non-U.S.-based law firms are considered equally with domestic U.S. firms; the sole criterion for inclusion in the NYLJ 100 is the size of a firm's New York state office. Law offices are ranked by the total number of permanent, full-time-equivalent attorneys (partners plus associates plus "other attorneys"—staff attorneys, of counsel, etc.); where a firm has more than one office in New York state, the largest is the one that is ranked. In the case of a tie between or among firms, they are ranked equally but listed alphabetically. The NYLJ 100 is prepared from two primary sources: data obtained through the 2009 NLJ 250 survey of The National Law Journal, an affiliate of the New York Law Journal Magazine, and the New York Law Journal's own 2009 NYLJ 100 survey. All data is for the period Oct. 1, 2008 to Sept. 30, 2009 unless noted otherwise. Because attorney numbers are submitted in full-time equivalent terms, in some cases, due to rounding, numbers are slightly higher or lower than the figures submitted by the firms. Additionally, minor discrepancies between the total number of attorneys at a firm and the total number reported in branch offices are due to rounding. A zero indicates that less than one full-time attorney works in that city. If the New York Law Journal Magazine received corrected or updated numbers from any firm surveyed by the National Law Journal, the corrected or updated numbers are used here. ************************************************
Pro Bono Survey
Description: The American Lawyer's annual report on the state of pro bono work in the nation's largest law firms, ranks The Am Law 200 firms based on the amount of pro bono work performed by the firm. Included for each firm are the average number of pro bono hours per lawyer and the percentage of lawyers with more than 20 hours of pro bono work. Methodology/Sources: For the Pro Bono rankings, The American Lawyer considers only Am Law 200 firms, which are the highest-grossing firms in the U.S. Half of the score comes from the average number of pro bono hours per lawyer, while the remaining half is the percentage of lawyers who perform more than 20 hours of pro bono work. Calculations are based on U.S. offices only. Pro bono work is defined as legal services provided to those who could not otherwise afford them. Work done by paralegals or summer associates is not included, nor is time spent on bar association work, on boards of nonprofits, or on non-legal work for charities. A score of 0 indicates that pro bono numbers were not submitted; it does not necessarily mean that a firm did no pro bono work. Percentage of lawyers with more than 20 hours of work may exceed 100 percent because of the way lawyers are counted and the time of year numbers are gathered. Go to americanlawyer.com for a full methodology and a more detailed look at firms’ 2008 pro bono matters. **************************************************************************
Small Law Firm Economic Survey
Description: Small law firms have their own unique set of challenges. The Small Law Firm Economic Survey, a special report derived from data contained in the Survey of Law Firm Economics, is specifically designed for law firms with 20 or fewer attorneys, with the intention of aiding them in improving their economics and management. The Survey contains one of the most complete, accurate, and up-to-date sets of economic statistics and financial data available about law firms. Published annually, the Survey helps you measure your firm against comparable firms and will provide a meaningful baseline against which to assess your firm's performance and profitability. Methodology: This study is undertaken annually. An invitation to participate is sent to a selected group of law firms. These are firms which have had prior contact with ALM Legal Intelligence through its survey products. In addition, past participants and purchasers of this survey are invited to provide data. Invitations to participate are also sent to select members of the Association of Legal Administrators and various other law firm leadership mailing lists. Only U.S. law firms are included in this study. Furthermore, only information furnished by sole practitioners and by law firms with 20 or fewer lawyers is contained in this report. ALM Legal Intelligence, in the Survey of Law Firm Economics, publishes information on larger firms. Information was collected in several areas for each lawyer who worked at the participating law firm in the previous year. Earnings and billable hours information is included only on individuals who worked full-time for the entire year. Because a number of the respondents are professional corporations/associations, the owner-employees of these firms may receive substantial benefits, which are not reported as taxable earnings. In partnerships and proprietorships, these benefits are attributable to each individual's income and are deducted by the partner or proprietor personally, subject to internal revenue code restrictions. Such benefits include pension fund contributions and insured medical benefits. Other benefits, such as life and disability insurance, are included in partner income and proprietor income but are not deductible in personal tax returns. The Survey, therefore, reports “total compensation” as the aggregate of cash income and the following benefits: qualified retirement plan contributions (vested or unvested), medical reimbursement, group insurance benefits, employer's share of social security, workers' compensation and unemployment compensation. Not included are auto expenses, continuing education expenses and professional dues. *****************************************************************
Summer Associate Survey
Description: The American Lawyer Student Edition’s annual survey measuring the satisfaction of summer associates employed by the nation's top law firms. Firms are scored based on associate ratings of the firm's qualities, including interest and satisfaction with the work; benefits and compensation; interaction with partners; training; acceptance of full time offers, and more. Methodology/Sources: The 2009 survey drew responses from 4,971 interns at 151 firms, 124 of which qualified for the national rankings chart. The survey was conducted from early June to mid-August. Surveys were distributed through the firms’ recruiting coordinators whom we contact in the spring about participation. Eligible summer associates are first- and second-year law students (classes of 2010 and 2011) clerking at firms for at least three weeks during the summer. Respondents are guaranteed anonymity. Firms included in the National Rankings chart are those from which we received at least ten completed surveys. Individual offices listed on the Results by City chart are those from which we received at least five surveys. To determine scores for individual questions, we average respondents’ answers on a firmwide basis for the National Rankings chart and on a citywide basis for the Results by City chart. All question averages are rounded to two decimal places. Scores for firms are calculated from those rounded question averages, then rounded to three decimal places. The average of nine job satisfaction questions is used to determine a firm’s overall score on both charts. Those questions asked how interesting the work was, how much “real” work was assigned, how the training and guidance measured up, how positive interactions with partners and with associates were, how well the firm communicated its goals and expectations, how accurately the firm portrayed itself in interviews, and the respondents’ inclination to accept a position if one were offered. The respondents were also asked to rate the firm overall as a place to work. Firms designated as national have no more than 45 percent of their lawyers in any single region of their home country. Firms designated as international have at least 40 percent of their lawyers working outside their home country. For detailed reports on each firm that qualified for the national rankings, please see americanlawyerstudentedition.com. *****************************************************************
Summer Hiring Survey
Description: The Summer Associate Hiring Surveys looks at the headcount of summer associates at AmLaw 200 firms. The report includes counts for current and previous year, with a year-to-year percentage change. Firm names are arranged starting with the highest percentage drop year-over-year in the number of summer associates hired for the current year to the highest percentage growth. Methodology/Sources: The report is an extract of the Summer Associates survey, published annually in October. The survey is conducted from early June to late July. Surveys are distributed through the firms' recruiting coordinators whom we contact in the spring about participation. Eligible summer associates are first- and second-year law students clerking at firms for at least three weeks during the summer. **************************************************************************
Survey of Compensation Programs in Law Firms
Description: Compensation is a key factor in the health of your law firm. And because the majority of every fee dollar goes to lawyer compensation, it should be an issue that concerns all firm leaders. The most profitable firms know how to handle compensation decisions and understand how to use compensation methodology as a critical component of their management processes. The Survey of Compensation Programs in Law Firms is designed to help firms benchmark and review their compensation programs. The Survey monitors the methods and criteria law firms use to make compensation decisions and reports on the make-up of the compensation decision-makers. Additional compensation program information is provided for non-lawyers, including paralegals and support staff. Published triennially. Methodology: Questionnaires were mailed in the fall of 2008 to past participants of this survey, other ALM Legal Intelligence (formerly Altman Weil Publications®) survey participants, as well as various law firm leadership lists. We received a total of 96 completed questionnaires. Five sole practitioners were removed from the analysis. Tabulated are 91 carefully edited responses. Analysis of participant characteristics, such as firm size, form of organization and other demographics immediately follows these responses. **************************************************************************
Survey of Law Firm Economics
Description: Each year the legal profession becomes more demanding. Law firms struggle to maintain and grow revenues, control costs, and retain a high-quality staff. To stay competitive, law firm managers need an unbiased evaluation of their current operations. The Survey of Law Firm Economics contains one of the most complete, accurate, and up-to-date sets of economic statistics and financial data available about law firms. Published annually, the Survey will help you measure your firm against comparable firms in terms of financials, billing rates, billable hours, compensation, and staffing ratios. The Survey provides a meaningful baseline against which to assess your firm's performance and profitability. It is particularly useful to those firms in the small- to mid-size law firm market. First published in 1972, the Survey of Law Firm Economics is a valuable resource for accurate, relevant, and timely data on law firm economics. Methodology: This study is undertaken annually. An invitation to participate was sent to a selected group of law firms. These are firms that have had prior contact with ALM Legal Intelligence and include past participants and purchasers of our various surveys. Invitations to participate were also sent to various members of the Association of Legal Administrators and other law firm management mailing lists. Only U.S. law firms are included in this study. Sole practitioners are excluded from this report. ALM Legal Intelligence has a separate report on small U.S. law firms entitled the Small Law Firm Economic Survey. This survey includes information furnished by sole practitioners through law firms with up to 20 lawyers. Information was collected in several areas for each lawyer who worked at the participating law firm for the previous year. Earnings and billable hours information is included only for individuals who worked full-time for the entire year. **************************************************************************
Survey of Law Firm Economics – General Counsel Edition
Methodology: This study is undertaken annually. An invitation to participate was sent to a selected group of law firms. These are firms that have had prior contact with ALM Legal Intelligence and include past participants and purchasers of our various surveys. Invitations to participate were also sent to various members of the Association of Legal Administrators and other law firm management mailing lists. Only U.S. law firms are included in this study. Sole practitioners are excluded from this report. ALM Legal Intelligence has a separate report on small U.S. law firms entitled the Small Law Firm Economic Survey. This survey includes information furnished by sole practitioners through law firms with up to 20 lawyers. Information was collected in several areas for each lawyer who worked at the participating law firm for the previous year. Earnings and billable hours information is included only for individuals who worked full-time for the entire year. **************************************************************************
Texas 100
Description: Texas Lawyer's annual survey of the largest law firms in Texas includes number of equity and non-equity partners, number of associates, number of other attorneys, managing partners and number of lawyers in each branch office. Methodology/Sources: All chart information for the Texas 100 is as of January 1st. Lawyer numbers are for lawyers in the firms’ Texas offices only. Some firms do not differentiate between equity and non-equity partners, while some firms do differentiate but decline to share that information. For those firms that did report the number of equity and non-equity partners, the equity partners are indicated in parentheses. The Texas lawyer numbers include: total lawyers; total partners or shareholders (number of equity partners or shareholders); associates; and other lawyers. Firms based outside Texas listed the managing partner for their primary Texas location. ************************************************************************** |
