Am Law 200 — LLMpedia

Contents

Am Law 200

The Am Law 200 is an annual ranking of 200 leading law firms published by The American Lawyer, compiling data on revenues, profits, and headcounts among firms such as Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Latham & Watkins, Sullivan & Cromwell, Kirkland & Ellis and Jones Day. It serves as a benchmark alongside publications like The National Law Journal and Law360 and is referenced by institutions including Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Columbia Law School, Stanford Law School and New York University School of Law.

Overview

The list aggregates annual financial metrics for 200 large firms, covering networks such as Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Debevoise & Plimpton, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, White & Case, Sidley Austin, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Anderson Kill, Vinson & Elkins, Greenberg Traurig and Holland & Knight. Compilations often highlight firms with high revenue per lawyer, profit per equity partner, and headcount, comparing firms with offices in markets like New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago, London and Hong Kong. The publication is produced by staff who have covered firms involved with matters before entities such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court of the United States, the Federal Reserve System and multinational transactions implicating World Bank and International Monetary Fund clients.

Rankings employ metrics including gross revenue, revenue per lawyer, profit per equity partner, and numbers of equity and non‑equity partners, drawing on submissions from firms such as Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Latham & Watkins and data tied to cases in venues like the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and arbitration panels administered by the International Chamber of Commerce. The American Lawyer obtains audited figures, partner surveys, and public filings from firms with operations in jurisdictions like Delaware, New York (state), California, Texas and England and Wales. The methodology parallels other rankings such as Vault (company) and is often cross‑referenced by commentators at The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal.

Since its inception, the ranking has reflected consolidation trends seen with mergers involving firms like Sullivan & Cromwell, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Ropes & Gray, Perkins Coie, O'Melveny & Myers and Hogan Lovells. It tracked shifts after events such as the 2008 financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and regulatory changes enacted by bodies like the Department of Justice and European Commission. Globalization produced entries from firms expanding into markets like São Paulo, Beijing, Tokyo, Sydney and Dubai, while major lateral partner moves among Baker McKenzie, Norton Rose Fulbright, Hogan & Hartson (pre‑merger) and Squire Patton Boggs altered year‑to‑year standings.

The list influences recruitment strategies at law schools including Harvard Law School, UCLA School of Law, University of Chicago Law School and Georgetown University Law Center and guides corporate counsel at firms such as General Electric, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft and Apple Inc. in selecting outside counsel. It affects compensation benchmarks that firms like Kirkland & Ellis, Skadden, Arps, Cravath and Latham & Watkins use to set lockstep and merit raises, and it shapes market perceptions in practice areas before tribunals such as the International Court of Justice and litigation venues like Southern District of New York.

Critics cite reliance on self‑reported data from firms including Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, WilmerHale, King & Spalding and Covington & Burling, arguing this can obscure partner compensation structures and cross‑border revenue allocation. Observers from outlets like The New York Times, Bloomberg, Reuters and Financial Times have questioned the weight given to revenue versus qualitative measures such as diversity initiatives tied to organizations like National Association for Law Placement and outcomes before entities such as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Allegations about ranking manipulation, cherry‑picking of transactions involving clients like Enron, WorldCom, Lehman Brothers and large mergers reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission have periodically surfaced.

Yearly highlights often note top performers such as Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Skadden, Arps, Sullivan & Cromwell and Cravath, Swaine & Moore, while breakout years have been marked for firms like Paul, Weiss, Ropes & Gray, Goodwin Procter, Cooley LLP, Mayer Brown and Quinn Emanuel. Announcements of major increases in profit per equity partner at firms like Debevoise & Plimpton or rapid growth at firms such as Hunton Andrews Kurth, Morrison & Foerster, Baker Botts and Arnold & Porter draw commentary from trade publications including Law.com and Above the Law. Mergers, lateral hires from firms including Debevoise, Paul Hastings, Kilpatrick Townsend and regulatory victories before bodies like the Securities and Exchange Commission often appear as context for yearly ranking movements.

Category:Legal rankings