Firm Profiles
IN-DEPTH RESEARCH REPORT
on Williams & Connolly LLP
- - Financial Information
- - Compensation
- - Billing Rates
- - Lateral Partner Moves
- - Pro bono
- - Key Contacts
Williams & Connolly
- Designation: Washington, D.C.
- Head Count: 271
- Gross Revenues: $330,500,000
- Revenue Per Lawyer: $1,220,000
- Profits Per Partner: $1,255,000
- Year Over Year Change: no change
When this firm says it is based in Washington, D.C., it really means it: There are no other offices. Every attorney on Williams & Connolly’s roster is based in the nation’s capital. And when the firm says it is focused on litigation, particularly the high–stakes stuff, it means that, too. Williams & Connolly represented President Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial, represented Oliver North during the Iran–Contra scandal, and served as national coordinating counsel for the pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co., Inc., in litigation over its anti–inflammation drug, Vioxx.
Founded in 1967 by the larger–than–life litigator Edward Bennett Williams, the firm was a finalist in The American Lawyer’s Litigation Department of the Year competition in 2002 and 2008, and earned an honorable mention in 2010 (the contest is held every two years). Williams & Connolly handles both civil and criminal work, has a strong products liability and intellectual property bench and, across the board, is famous for its full preparation and, when need be, a ferocious defense.
It is also well known for promoting from within. Williams & Connolly has never taken much of a liking to hiring laterals, and almost every partner in the firm has come up through the ranks. Revenue per lawyer has traditionally been high and has landed Williams & Connolly within the top ten firms on multiple occasions. With its litigation–centric focus, Williams managed to avoid the hit many transactional–heavy firms took during the recession, and saw its revenues rise steadily (if not dramatically) through the downturn.
Like a number of its D.C.–based brethren, Williams scores well on pro bono: It ranked thirtieth of 200 firms in The American Lawyer’s 2011 Pro Bono Report, with lawyers averaging around 105 hours of nonpaying work. The firm also scores above average on diversity (sixty–fourth of 194 firms on our 2011 scorecard), with minorities comprising about 10 percent of the firm’s U.S. partnership or, in other words, 10 percent of its Washington partnership.
—Updated as of 1/1/12
Firm Rankings
| Survey | Rank | Year Over Year Change | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Am Law 100 | 90 | no change | Gross revenue |
| Am Law 200 | 90 | no change | Gross revenue |
| NLJ 250 | 161 | 2 | Lawyer head count |
| The A-List | NR | N/A | Overall excellence |
| Pro Bono Scorecard | 30 | 27 | Pro-bono commitment |
| Diversity Scorecard | NR | N/A | Minority head count |
| Midlevel Associates Survey | NR | N/A | Job satisfaction |
| Summer Associates Survey | NR | N/A | Summer programs |
In the News
Military Vets Turned Law Firm Partners Reflect on Experiences Abroad
Brian Baxter : The Am Law Daily : March 26, 2013
With the U.S. marking the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war, The Am Law Daily contacted lawyers with personal connections to a conflict that claimed the lives of roughly 4,500 Americans and untold Iraqis for their thoughts a decade after the invasion. Here, in their own words, a group of former Am Law 100 associates—now partners at various firms—who served overseas describe their recollections of a war many Americans would like to forget.
Washington Post Co. defeats securities fraud claims involving Kaplan
Zoe Tillman : The National Law Journal : March 20, 2013
A federal judge in D.C. has dismissed a securities fraud lawsuit against the Washington Post Company, finding that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that executives intended to deceive the market about the financial health of for-profit education subsidiary Kaplan Inc.
INADMISSIBLE
: The National Law Journal : March 4, 2013
Number eight for Holder; secret service class; remembering Oberdorfer and Feffer; stopping money; and a smooth ride for Kelly in this week's column.
Deals & Suits
: Corporate Counsel : March 1, 2013
Justices torn on sampling DNA from arrestees
Tony Mauro : The National Law Journal : February 28, 2013
The conflicting tug of personal privacy and crime-solving technology tore at the Supreme Court on Tuesday as justices considered whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to take DNA samples from arrestees who have not been charged with or convicted of a crime.
Big Suits
David Bario, Tom Coster, Scott Graham, Jenna Greene, Jan Wolfe : The American Lawyer : February 27, 2013
Carnegie Mellon v. Marvell Technology; Fannie Mae v. Bank of America; In the matter of Google Inc.; In re VeriFone Holdings Securities Litigation
Justices Weigh Taking DNA Samples From Arrestees
Tony Mauro : The National Law Journal : February 27, 2013
The conflicting tug of personal privacy and crime-solving technology tore at the Supreme Court on Tuesday as justices considered whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to take DNA samples from arrestees who have not been charged with or convicted of a crime.
Justices Torn Over Taking DNA Samples From Arrestees
Tony Mauro : The National Law Journal : February 27, 2013
The conflict between personal privacy and crime-solving technology tore at the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday as justices considered whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to take DNA samples from arrestees who have not been charged with or convicted of a crime.
Supreme Court torn over constitutionality of taking DNA samples from arrestees
Tony Mauro : The National Law Journal : February 26, 2013
The conflicting tug of personal privacy and crime-solving technology tore at the Supreme Court on Tuesday as justices considered whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to take DNA samples from arrestees who have not been charged with or convicted of a crime.
Lawyers debate meaning of 'abstract' in Federal Circuit patent case
BLT : Legal Times : February 12, 2013
A full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in a case to determine the patent eligibility of a computer-assisted financial transaction method.
- Adams and Reese
- Anderson Kill & Olick
- Arent Fox
- Arthur Cox
- Baker & McKenzie
- Brown Rudnick
- Buist Moore
- Chadbourne & Parke
- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
- Clifford Chance
- Cooley
- Covington & Burling
- Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- Davis Polk & Wardwell
- Dewey & LeBoeuf
- Diamond McCarthy
- Dickstein Shapiro
- DLA Piper
- Dreier LLP
- Duane Morris
- Eversheds
- Fish & Richardson
- Freehills
- Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
- Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian
- Heller Ehrman
- Herbert Smith
- Hogan Lovells
- Howrey
- Irwin Mitchell
- Jenner & Block
- Jones Day
- K&L Gates
- Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman
- Kirkland & Ellis
- Latham & Watkins
- Linklaters
- Mallesons Stephen Jaques
- McKool Smith
- Minter Ellison
- Moore & Van Allen
- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
- Morrison & Foerster
- Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
- Nexsen Pruet
- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,
- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
- Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein
- Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
- Perkins Coie
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pitman
- Proskauer Rose
- Reed Smith
- Ropes & Gray
- Ruden McClosky
- Shearman & Sterling
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
- Slaughter and May
- Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
- Sullivan & Cromwell
- Vinson & Elkins
- Weil, Gotshal & Manges
- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
