How Big Law's Best Litigation Departments Stack Up
From size to revenue to their leverage breakdown, this is how the 2019 Litigation Department of the Year entrants compare.
December 30, 2019 at 02:00 PM
5 minute read
Susman Godfrey defended Uber. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison represented pharmaceutical companies in the fallout from the opioid crisis. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher took on First Amendment issues.
There were 50 law firms up for The American Lawyer's 2019 Litigation Department of the Year award, ranging in size, revenue and achievements. The submissions offered a peek into how many of the country's top-end litigation departments operate.
At some firms, smaller litigation departments are bringing in a comparatively larger slice of the revenue pie.
Among the 50 law firm entrants, the litigation departments make up about 41% of overall firm head count, and at most firms the litigation department's size within the firm is equitable to the revenue percentage it brings in. But some firms have smaller teams bringing in comparatively larger chunks of firm revenue. Kirkland & Ellis' litigation department, for example, accounts for 30% of its overall head count and 36.4% of the firm's revenue in 2018.
Litigation departments at Weil, Gotshal & Manges; Winston & Strawn; Jones Day; DLA Piper; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; Hogan Lovells; and Greenberg Traurig also fetched a portion of firm revenue larger than their department size in 2018.
At many more firms, including Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Hunton Andrews Kurth, the spread was more balanced, and the litigation departments brought in a proportionate amount of revenue for their size within the firm.
Some firms had a larger litigation department bringing in a smaller portion of the firm's revenue, including Sidley Austin and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, where the litigation department comprises 61% of the firm's lawyers and brought in 47.4% of firm revenue last year.
Of course, revenue is only one indicator of a department's health, especially when law firms specialize in other, more lucrative practice areas. It's not necessarily a sign that a litigation department is less effective: 2019 Litigation Department of the Year winner Gibson Dunn's team comprises 56.8% of the firm's lawyers and took in 54.7% of its revenue in 2018.
Of the 50 entrants, 17 firms declined to provide what percentage of overall revenue was attributed to their litigation department.
Most litigation departments make up less than half of the head count at their firms.
Only 19 of the 50 law firms have litigation departments that consist of at least half of the firm's total head count. This includes six all-litigation firms—Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; Boies Schiller Flexner; Keker, Van Nest & Peters; Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan; and Kaplan Hecker & Fink—and one firm, Williams & Connolly, that said its litigation department comprises 99% of the firm's head count.
On the other end of the spectrum, five firms reported their litigation departments contain one-quarter or less of their head count: Fenwick & West; DLA Piper; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Proskauer Rose; and Simpson Thatcher.
Most litigation departments brought in less than half of their firm's overall revenue.
Of the 33 firms that provided the percentage of revenue their litigation department brought in, only 12 said litigation department revenue accounted for more than half of the firm's overall revenue.
More than half of firms said their litigation departments brought in less than half of their overall revenue, and Latham & Watkins, Willkie, Proskauer and Simpson Thacher all said their litigation departments brought in a quarter or less of their overall revenue.
Most litigation departments have a few hundred attorneys.
The average size of a respondent's entire litigation department, including partners, associates and other attorneys, is 383 lawyers. Quinn Emanuel has the largest head count by far, and at 1,011 attorneys, it is the only respondent that exceeds 1,000 litigators. The rest of the 10 largest litigation firms to enter the contest, based on department head count, are: Hogan Lovells; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; Kirkland; Sidley; Gibson Dunn; Latham; Jones Day; King & Spalding; and Covington & Burling.
Seven firms said they have litigation departments with fewer than 100 total attorneys: Fenwick, with 98; Keker Van Nest, with 95; Lieff Cabraser, with 94; Watchell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, with 77; Farella Braun + Martel, with 71; Wilkinson Walsh, with 41; and Kaplan Hecker, with 22.
At a few firms, litigation partners overwhelm litigation associates, but that's far from the norm.
About one-fifth of award entrants are leverage outliers with more litigation partners in their departments than associates: Lieff Cabraser; Thompson & Knight; Shook, Hardy & Bacon; Farella Braun; Greenberg Traurig; Kirkland; Boies Schiller; Norton Rose Fulbright; McGuireWoods; DLA Piper; and Alston & Bird.
But most of the firms said their litigation departments are overwhelmingly associate-heavy. Jones Day has 41 partners and 56 associates; Paul Weiss has 61 partners and 298 associates; Davis Polk & Wardwell has 41 partners and 190 associates; Cravath, Swaine & Moore has 34 partners and 146 associates; and Debevoise & Plimpton has 53 partners and 293 associates.
Read More:
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 AllBig Law Communications, Media Attorneys Brace for Changes Under Trump
4 minute readPolsinelli's Revenue and Profits Surge Amid Partner De-Equitizations, Retirements
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
- Sidley Austin
- Hunton Andrews Kurth
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
- Norton Rose Fulbright
- Jones Day
- Proskauer Rose
- Davis Polk & Wardwell
- Boies Schiller Flexner
- DLA Piper
- Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- Shook Hardy & Bacon
- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Warton & Garrison
- Susman Godfrey
- Keker, Van Nest & Peters
- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
- Farella Braun + Martel
- Kirkland & Ellis
- Latham & Watkins
- Greenberg Traurig
- Weil, Gotshal & Manges
- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
- Hogan Lovells
- Willkie Farr & Gallagher
- Kaye Scholer
- Lieff Cabraser
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
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