There's more to life than PEP (or let's get Travers off the naughty step)
Journalists are sometimes criticised for making lawyers overly focused on profits. The theory is that the profession has become overly bent around the one metric of profits per equity partner (PEP) and that the media has played its part by publishing those numbers. Personally, I think the idea that the media introduced greed to an innocent and unsuspecting profession is nonsense. The legal profession has grown rapidly in recent years, and when that happens to any industry you get more transparency. That's a natural development of a healthy business services market, and it comes with the territory. I also don't know of any industry where a core measure of profitability hasn't become well established.
July 30, 2009 at 08:03 PM
3 minute read
Journalists are sometimes criticised for making lawyers overly focused on profits. The theory is that the profession has become overly bent around the one metric of profits per equity partner (PEP) and that the media has played its part by publishing those numbers. Personally, I think the idea that the media introduced greed to an innocent and unsuspecting profession is nonsense. The legal profession has grown rapidly in recent years, and when that happens to any industry you get more transparency. That's a natural development of a healthy business services market, and it comes with the territory. I also don't know of any industry where a core measure of profitability hasn't become well established.
But there's a more fundamental reason that I don't believe the media is to blame for creating the PEP monster: the basic truth is that many senior lawyers really – and I can't stress this enough – really care about PEP. That is less about greed and more because they see it as their share price, the key indicator of their own success and status. And lawyers, being a competitive bunch, care a lot about status. As such, this year I've seen partners at firms where PEP has tumbled act like naughty schoolboys, as if they've let themselves and the profession down because profits have fallen in what is, lest we forget, a very sizeable recession. But so what? Obviously profitability is important and firms must remain competitive with their peers over the medium term, but that won't be defined by one or even two years.
Providing your firm has a clear sense of why profitability has fallen, how that fits in with your business model and some sense of how the business will return to an upward track, it shouldn't be cause for shame. Does it matter, for example, that profitability at Travers or Ashurst has sharply fallen this year? Given the business model of these firms it was always on the cards. But these are good firms with good lawyers. As long as they have confidence in their strategy and a credible message to take to staff, it shouldn't matter. And these firms are still very profitable, even with 35%-40% falls in PEP, so let's keep a sense of perspective.
The firms that do have something to worry about are those where profits are tanking not because of the business model but because they are failing to execute that business model. That can be for a number of reasons; such as miserable assistants or a patchy international network. More than anything it usually comes down to a lack of quality in the partnership. Since putting the latter problem right takes years, firms in this camp will want to get cracking pronto. That way they may have a shot of doing better come the next recession.
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
© 2025 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 AllLatham's magic circle strikes, pay rises and EY's legal takeover: the best of Legal Week over the last few weeks
3 minute readJob losses, soaring partner profits and Freshfields exits - the best of Legal Week over the past two weeks
3 minute readMagic circle PEP hikes, the associate pay conundrum and more #MeToo - the best of Legal Week last week
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 2'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 3Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
- 4On the Move and After Hours: Meyner and Landis; Cooper Levenson; Ogletree Deakins; Saiber
- 5State Budget Proposal Includes More Money for Courts—for Now
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