|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
In-House at The American Lawyer: July 2002 Don't say we didn't warn you. A year ago that balloon on our July cover was headed toward a pin. The results can be found throughout the pages of this our annual Am Law 100 report. The big keep getting bigger: Gross revenues are up, and another megafirm, Baker & McKenzie, has hit the billion-dollar mark. But revenues are up because head count is up. Even half-idle lawyers churn out hours, and collectively they reach new records. But revenue per lawyer and profits per partner were, on average, more or less flat. And that is cause for some concern as 2002 continues to stagger along--grand times for litigators and bankruptcy specialists, but for corporate lawyers these are quiet times best spent on client development or meeting the kids' teachers. The Am Law 100 report is a group effort. Everyone in our newsroom is involved; those tight smiles are grins of relief. We draw as well on the efforts of reporters and editors at American Lawyer Media's nine regional newspapers. As has been the case for the past five years, our reporting team has been led by senior editor Jim Schroeder and by Margaret Daisley, who, as of this issue, carries the august and deserved title of ALM's director of editorial research. In addition to all her other duties and survey work, Daisley will now help our company organize its data and find new ways to make it useful to our audience. The Am Law 100 has long been a fixture of big-firm life. We think--and you tell us--that it provides the leading corporate firms in the land with a snapshot of where they stood and a bit of a map for where they're headed. The numbers are as solid as we can make them. Many firms cooperate. Many firms that cooperate with us will go to their graves denying that fact‹and we'll never tell. A few stiff us completely. In those cases, thank the Lord for scorned spouses and other knowledgeable sources. And some firms, well, exaggerate. We catch them whenever we can; it's always an embarrassing moment for both sides. Worse: It's dumb. If we catch you, what do you say? If we don't catch you, what do you tell the lateral candidates you're attracting with the promise of tainted honey? That's just a waste of everyone's time, though if you're a dealmaker I understand that you may need something to fill in the gaps. Because these numbers are so important to the community we cover and care about, we take them seriously. Because we take them seriously, we cringe a bit when the wrong lessons are drawn. Profits per partner is now the leading measuring stick. One way to move up the chart, of course, is to reduce the number of equity partners. This may make good sense if it's part of an overall firm renovation; it's needlessly cruel if it's just a matter of appearances. Similarly, the business difficulties of a pro bono champion like Holland & Knight should not be an excuse to reduce a firm's commitment to pro bono. The stunning economic success of the firms at the top of the pro bono charts should put the lie to the notion that great law firms can't do well while doing good. It's a matter of will and a sense of duty.
Next month we continue our financial report with the Am Law Second Hundred issue. And in November we will once again publish The Global 100. Can Clifford Chance stay on top? Watch this space.
Aric Press
|
