How Many Excess Partners Does Your Firm Have?
Strategist Hugh Simons lays out how many excess partners reside in the Am Law 200 and what that means at the next economic downturn.
August 30, 2017 at 02:27 PM
9 minute read
It is widely recognized that Big Law has surplus partner capacity. In a recent Altman Weil survey, over two-thirds of firm leaders reported their equity partners were not sufficiently busy; nearly 80 percent said the same of nonequity partners. What is less well recognized is just how massive this surplus has become, how unevenly it is spread across firms in different profitability cohorts, and what it portends for when the next downturn hits.
The last time partners were fully utilized was in 2007, the year before the great recession hit. Table 1 shows how the partner ranks of the Am Law 200 have grown since that time by firm profitability cohort (PPP 1-50 refers to the 50 highest profit firms by profit per equity partner, PPP). In aggregate, the number of partners has grown by 21 percent. Growth of equity partners has been relatively modest (only 8 percent) while that of nonequity partners has been dramatic (45 percent). It is noteworthy that the highest PPP firms (PPP 1-50) have barely grown their equity ranks and that the PPP 101-150 actually shrank theirs. The second 50 firms, those in the PPP 51-100 cohort, stand out as having grown both their equity and nonequity ranks considerably ahead of the other profitability cohorts.
We know this growth has resulted in more partners than can be kept fully utilized and thus that partner capacity has grown faster than demand. But how fast did demand grow? One proxy is to say that demand grows with the overall growth of the economy—12 percent on an inflation-adjusted basis for the time period in question. This may be a slight overestimate of demand growth as new technologies are being used more broadly and clients have taken more work in-house. Nevertheless, this 12 percent number suggests that a useful benchmark for the number of partners (at full utilization) needed to meet current market demand can be calculated as: the 2007 number (i.e., the last time partners were fully utilized) plus 12 percent (to allow for economy-driven growth in demand). Partners above this level are surplus capacity.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFormer Cahill Executive Committee Member, Leveraged Finance Pioneer Dies at 67
To Ease Partner Pay Tensions, Some Law Firms Are Seeking 'Middle Ground' in Transparency
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Del. Court Holds Stance on Musk's $55.8B Pay Rescission, Awards Shareholder Counsel $345M
- 2Another Senior Boeing Attorney Exits, This One for CLO Post at Jet-Maintenance Company
- 3Bridge the Communication Gap: The Benefits of Having (and Being) a Bilingual Mediator
- 4CFIUS Is Locked and Loaded, but What Lies Ahead for CFIUS Enforcement Activity?
- 5Deluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250