IN-DEPTH RESEARCH REPORT
on Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker
- - Financial Information
- - Compensation
- - Billing Rates
- - Lateral Partner Moves
- - Pro bono
- - Key Contacts
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker
- Designation: National
- Head Count:
- Gross Revenues:
- Revenue Per Lawyer:
- Profits Per Partner:
- Year Over Year Change: N/A
Long known for its work in insurance law and lobbying—it’s the largest lobbying firm in New York—Wilson Elser has expanded over the years into a full–service firm. But government affairs and insurance coverage, regulatory issues, and bad faith still remain its strengths. Counting close to 800 lawyers, the firm operates 23 offices, and has a presence in London as well (where most of the insurance defense and coverage matters it handles have a cross–border element). Wilson also has a network of affiliate firms in France and Germany.
The firm has traditionally ranked at the bottom of The Am Law 200 on revenue per lawyer (under $400,000), yet it has fared much better—closer to the top 100 firms—on profits per partner (around $800,000). And in recent years Wilson has garnered multiple top 20 scores on The Am Law Profitability Index—sometimes even top ten scores.
Still, revenue stalled through the recession, stagnating or even dropping a bit in the years between 2006 and 2010 (a period during which the firm’s head count dropped by some 80 lawyers). And on some key noneconomic measures, Wilson turns in ho–hum—or worse—results. It placed 138th of 194 firms on The American Lawyer’s 2011 Diversity Scorecard, with minorities constituting about 10 percent of the firm’s U.S. lawyers, and barely 5 percent of its partnership. Pro bono fared even worse. Wilson came in 168th of 200 firms on our 2011 Pro Bono Report, with the firm’s lawyers averaging a paltry 8.7 hours of nonpaying work.
—Updated as of 1/1/12
|Survey||Rank||Year Over Year Change||Description|
|Am Law 100||NR||N/A||Gross revenue|
|Am Law 200||N/A||Gross revenue|
|NLJ 250||41||2||Lawyer head count|
|The A-List||NR||N/A||Overall excellence|
|Pro Bono Scorecard||168||32||Pro-bono commitment|
|Diversity Scorecard||133||5||Minority head count|
|Midlevel Associates Survey||NR||N/A||Job satisfaction|
|Summer Associates Survey||NR||N/A||Summer programs|
In the News
Charles Toutant : New Jersey Law Journal : March 21, 2013
Widener University School of Law graduates unable to find jobs in their profession can go forward with a suit charging they were misled about the school's placement success rate.
: New Jersey Law Journal : March 8, 2013
The past year saw a continued resurgence in new partners at New Jersey firms, which, if not quite as robust as the year before, still held its own as an indicator that the firms are sanguine about expansion.
By Judith Nallin : New Jersey Law Journal : March 7, 2013
The lack of an eyewitness is not fatal to plaintiffs' dram shop claim.
Mary Pat Gallagher : New Jersey Law Journal : March 7, 2013
Proving a bar customer was "visibly intoxicated" for purposes of dram-shop liability does not require eyewitness testimony, an appeals court says.
Teresa Wall-Cyb : The Recorder : March 4, 2013
Make your orders descriptive and don't take anything out, explains the San Mateo County Court judge.
: New York Law Journal : February 26, 2013
Three firms announce promotions, while Bracewell & Giuliani and Fox Rothschild each announce the addition of a partner.
Diane Jeantet : The Am Law Daily : February 26, 2013
Barnes & Thornburg bolsters its government contracts practice in Washington, D.C., with three Greenberg Traurig attorneys; a Massachusetts state senator is now also counsel at Day Pitney; and Chadbourne & Parke welcomes back a former partner in Ukraine. The Churn is constant. Please send all announcements to firstname.lastname@example.org.
: Texas Lawyer : February 25, 2013
"Certification of Candidate," "Temporary SMU Dean" and "Green Jacket Sale in the Rough"
Sara Randazzo : The Am Law Daily : February 15, 2013
In a series of filings made ahead of a Feb. 13 deadline, the former partners in question argue that U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn should not approve the Chapter 11 plan, which serves as a blueprint for how the Dewey estate expects to dispose of its assets in order to pay off creditors who say they are owed a combined total of some $600 million.
Sara Randazzo : The Am Law Daily : February 13, 2013
In a series of filings made Tuesday and Wednesday, a handful of former Dewey & LeBoeuf partners moved to upend the defunct law firm's proposed Chapter 11 liquidation plan by arguing that a deal aimed at recovering money for creditors from former firm partners is unfair.
- Adams and Reese
- Anderson Kill & Olick
- Arent Fox
- Arthur Cox
- Baker & McKenzie
- Buist Moore
- Chadbourne & Parke
- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
- Clifford Chance
- Covington & Burling
- Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- Davis Polk & Wardwell
- Dewey & LeBoeuf
- Dickstein Shapiro
- DLA Piper
- Duane Morris
- Fish & Richardson
- Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
- Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian
- Heller Ehrman
- Irwin Mitchell
- Jenner & Block
- K&L Gates
- Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman
- Kirkland & Ellis
- Latham & Watkins
- Mallesons Stephen Jaques
- Moore & Van Allen
- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
- Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
- Nexsen Pruet
- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,
- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
- Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein
- Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
- Perkins Coie
- 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