Your law firm's true profitability revealed
Want to know how much profit your law firm really makes?
October 27, 2017 at 07:30 AM
4 minute read
In the last installment of this column, I argued that Big Law profitability is massively overstated and that some firms generate virtually no true profit at all.
The full detail is available here, but it essentially boils down to the way the industry treats all equity partner compensation as profit.
In reality, what Legal Week sibling title The American Lawyer's Am Law 100 and Global 100 surveys refer to as "net income" is actually a combination of two things: equity partners' salaries as senior lawyers and managers, and their profit as owners of the business.
Treating net income simply as profit means that, from an accounting perspective, equity partners receive no above-the-line salary and therefore represent no cost to the business. The result is artificially inflated profit margins that dwarf those at some of the most profitable companies on earth. The average profit margin across the Global 100 is 39% and goes all the way up to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, at a staggering 68%.
The piece was intended as more of a thought experiment, rather than seeking to provide yet another metric to assess law firm financial performance. That said, I did refer to a series of specific notional equity partner salary bands, which had been proposed by Alan Hodgart, a law firm consultant. By assigning firms with notional equity partner salaries and deducting this cost from net income, you are left with "true" profit.
Hodgart suggested setting average equity partner salaries at a 25% to 30% premium to each firm's highest-paid salaried fee-earner, or matching the compensation packages offered to general counsel at that firm's core clients. That equated to about $1m for an elite firm; $650,000 for a midmarket firm; and $400,000 for firms focused on lower-margin, commoditised work.
(Applying these figures to our latest survey data led to some pretty wild results: assigning a salary cost of $1m per equity partner causes Jones Day's profit margin to crash from 49% to just 2%, while a $650,000 notional equity partner salary sees Norton Rose Fulbright's profits wiped out entirely, with its margin plummeting from 31% to 0.003%. Impressively, Quinn Emanuel and Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz's profit margins both remain above 50%, even after such deductions.)
Among the many emails I received from readers about the article were several questioning the levels at which these bands had been set.
Some suggested that the salary portion of equity partner compensation should merely be equivalent to that of a firm's most senior associates. I somehow doubt that equity partners would be happy with that arrangement. Others suggested mirroring non-equity partner compensation. That's better, but would again underestimate the true cost. Equity partners should have more responsibility or generate more business than their non-equity peers – that's why they were given equity in the first place – and would therefore reasonably expect to be paid more. (This also wouldn't work for all-equity partnerships, such as Cleary, Davis Polk, Jones Day, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, Ropes & Gray, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom and Sullivan & Cromwell, to name but a few.)
Madhav Srinivasan, chief financial officer at Hunton & Williams, wrote in with a particularly thoughtful and nuanced metric that adds a premium to average non-equity partner compensation based on the ratio of each firm's equity partner profits and non-equity salaries. Using his methodology, the average profit margin for the Am Law 200, excluding firms with all-equity partnerships, drops from 37% to 13.8%. That's about halfway between the margins of professional services firms Accenture (9.9%) and Exponent Inc. (16.7%), which feels about right.
There will no doubt be readers who disagree. I would therefore like to propose an alternative approach to deciding what is an appropriate notional equity partner salary cost for each firm: you decide.
Linked to this story is an interactive chart with financial data for the world's 100 largest law firms by revenue. If you're an equity partner at one of these firms, ask yourself what you would expect to receive as a salary if you didn't hold an ownership stake in the business. If you type that figure into the notional salary box at the top of the chart, you can then see what your firm's profit margin would be if all of its equity partners were paid at that rate. You can even see the impact on margins at rival firms. Not that law firm partners would be at all interested in that sort of thing, of course…
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 AllBCLP Mulls Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
To Thrive in Central and Eastern Europe, Law Firms Need to 'Know the Rules of the Game'
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
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