What lies beneath – the politics of law firm financial transparency
When K&L Gates published comprehensive financial results on its website back in February it marked a rare bid for transparency by a major US law firm. Without the disclosure requirements foisted on their UK counterparts by regulations governing limited liability partnerships, financial information about US firms to date has been fairly limited and available on their own terms. That is not to say that UK firms have been a beacon of transparency. While we aim to shed light on the performance of the leading firms in the form of our UK top 50, and most do co-operate – thank you – it seems each year there are new and varied excuses as to why certain figures are not available (although Allen & Overy deserves credit for its efforts at financial disclosure, being one of the few firms to produce detailed – and audited – figures at this stage). Several others have been far more opaque, with much jiggery-pokery around exchange rates and the exact definition of an equity partner, while the way in which profits per equity partner are calculated varies wildly from firm to firm.
July 11, 2013 at 07:03 PM
3 minute read
When K&L Gates published comprehensive financial results on its website back in February it marked a rare bid for transparency by a major US law firm. Without the disclosure requirements foisted on their UK counterparts by regulations governing limited liability partnerships, financial information about US firms to date has been fairly limited and available on their own terms.
That is not to say that UK firms have been a beacon of transparency. While we aim to shed light on the performance of the leading firms in the form of our UK top 50, and most do co-operate – thank you – it seems each year there are new and varied excuses as to why certain figures are not available (although Allen & Overy deserves credit for its efforts at financial disclosure, being one of the few firms to produce detailed – and audited – figures at this stage).
Several others have been far more opaque, with much jiggery-pokery around exchange rates and the exact definition of an equity partner, while the way in which profits per equity partner are calculated varies wildly from firm to firm.
With the proliferation of Verein-type structures, it is undoubtedly harder to produce meaningful financials on a firm-wide basis. And following any merger, it is clearly more difficult to draw like-for-like comparisons from one year to the next. But not impossible.
The crux of the matter is that firms are keen to know how their competitors are faring, but without the obligation to disclose full financials themselves. The relentless downturn also means firms are much less keen to publicise underwhelming performance, as many – particularly in the squeezed middle-tier – continue to struggle.
However, while much of the key financial information will be available to partners at the firm, the majority of fee earners will remain in the dark. And for as much as there is constant pressure from partners to grow revenue and increase profits, one would hope that they also want to know how much money is being spent on those new office launches or that major IT investment, rather than just waiting for their payouts.
For any partner looking to join a firm, financial transparency should be vital. You can bet that the former partners of Halliwells and Dewey & LeBoeuf wish they had been kept in the loop.
Law firms may never have the financial reporting obligations of the listed companies they so often advise, but as the remaining results from the top law firms come in over the next few weeks it is interesting to note which are acting like corporates and practising what they preach.
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 AllMcDermott Hits Paul Hastings In London Again As Macfarlanes Also Swoops For Talent
2 minute readRe-Examining Values: Greenberg Traurig's Executive Chairman on the Lessons of the Pandemic
4 minute readDiversity Commitments Feel Hollow When Firms Cosy Up to Oppressive Regimes
Trending Stories
- 1JCPenney Customer's Slip-and-Fall From Bodily Substance Suit Best Left for a Jury to Decide, Judge Rules
- 2Products Liability: The Absence of Other Similar Claims—a Defense or a Misleading Effort to Sway a Jury?
- 3529 Accounts Are Not Your Divorce Piggybank
- 4Meta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
- 5Courts Beginning to Set Standards for Evidence Relying upon Artificial Intelligence
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