Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Am Law 100's New Metric: Value Per Lawyer
[Editor's Note: For an extensive critique of "profits per equity partner" and other law firm performance metrics, see the roundtable discussion and related articles in A&FP's May and June 2004 editions. Jim Davidson's June 2004 article on the need for improved survey data standardization is also highly relevant to this month's companion article on spotting statistical problems in survey reports.]
For 20 years, The American Lawyer has measured the economics of law firms, first with The Am Law 50 and 75, more recently with The Am Law 200. Throughout, we've kept to the same metrics: gross, revenue per lawyer, profits per partner, and the Am Law Profitability Index (API). These lists helped inform and change the profession. (Note that we didn't say ruin.) We published them again this month with one significant addition that we think reflects the changed nature of the business of law: Value Per Lawyer (VPL).
Like it or not, for law firms, partner compensation is the primary economic value. VPL is a simple calculation: compensation-all partners (the combined payout to equity and nonequity partners, or CAP) divided by total lawyer head count. This tells us, on average, how much each lawyer contributes to partner comp. To state this proposition more memorably: How many Am Law 100 lawyers does it take to put $10 million in the pockets of firm partners? At top-ranked Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, about seven. At second-ranked Sullivan & Cromwell, about 16. At bottom-ranked Coudert Brothers, about 91. At the median firm, Fish & Richardson, the count is 36. There may be partners at each of those firms who take home identical amounts of money; how firms divide their pools is their affair. But as firms, they are very different.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.