March Madness 2009

ATL March Madness for Law Firms: The Sweet Sixteen(Polls close Sunday and a guest commentator weighs in)

By  
on

We just wanted to remind you that the polls are open until Sunday for the Sweet (Safe) Sixteen round of ATL March Madness for Law Firms. It’s our NCAA-style tournament to crown Biglaw’s safest firm — the place where you are least likely to be laid off.

Sixteen firms remain. Some of the match-ups are tight ones.

A faithful ATL reader who goes by the moniker Lord Oberon has been chosen to weigh in as a guest commentator. ATL’s Dick Vitale has compiled stats from the AmLaw 100 survey for the March Madness firms. Here’s Oberon’s round-up, baby!

  • Of the sixteen we have information on, there are five that have posted gains in profits, number of equity partners, and PPP. In order of PPP (the order doesn’t change if you use 08 or 09 PPP), they are: Paul W – Kirkland – Debevoise – Cleary – Gibson
  • Of all the March Madness firms we have information on, there are three that have NOT posted gains in profits, number of equity partners, or PPP. In order of PPP they are: Cravath – Latham – Shearman & Sterling
  • There are seven March Madness firms that posted revenue above $1 Billion. Of those firms, Weil and Latham have reduced the number of equity partners; Skadden and Latham have reduced PPP; and Latham reduced gross revenue.
  • Two firms increased the number of equity partners, but lost revenue and PPP: Fried Frank – Milbank Tweed
  • Eight firms increased the number of equity partners, but lost PPP: Skadden – WilmerHale – MoFo – Paul Hastings – Sullivan – Davis Polk – Fried Frank – Milbank Tweed

    • Use the statistics as you will. Vote with your head. Or vote with your heart. Either way, vote for Biglaw’s safest firms, and check out the brackets, after the jump. Polls close Sunday at midnight.


    Polls close on Sunday at midnight. Vote in the Sweet Sixteen contests below to decide which firms make it to the Legal Employment’s Elite Eight.

    Sponsored

    And there’s more statistical analysis from Oberon after the polls.

    Sponsored

    Here’s more statistical analysis from Oberon. It includes some firms that did not make it into March Madness, and some that have already been eliminated from the tournament:

    In the spirit of the March Madness contest, I have put some [statistics] together by comparing AmLaw’s profitability stats for 2008 and 2009. Since AmLaw hasn’t posted all the PPP, they were calculated by multiplying the difference between 08 PPP and Revenue to the 09 Revenue (obviously that means some of them are not actually going to be accurate, but they’ll be close).

    Largest Negative Changes in Gross Revenue

    Cadwalader -13.79897785

    Cravath -12.77641278

    Fried Frank -9.134883721

    Latham -5.260533533

    Shearman & Sterling -4.885993485

    Largest Negative Changes in Number of Partners

    Dechert -6.748466258

    Weil -4.166666667

    Latham -2.02247191

    Hogan & Hartson -1.351351351

    Shearman & Sterling -0.546448087

    Largest Negative Changes in PPP

    Fried Frank -16.75582896

    Cadwalader -14.91847165

    Cravath -12.77641278

    Milbank Tweed -11.21158385

    Davis Polk -4.790419162

    Largest Positive Changes in Gross Revenue

    Cooley 13.81443299

    Mayer Brown 9.89010989

    Cleary 8.501118568

    Sidley 7.431457431

    Debevoise 7.25863284

    Kirkland 6.870229008

    Largest Positive Changes in Number of Partners

    Cooley 19.37984496

    Fried Frank 9.154929577

    Milbank Tweed 8.928571429

    Kirkland 6.818181818

    White & Case 6.271777003

    Largest Positive Changes in PPP

    Weil 9.320999075

    Mayer Brown 7.855107855

    Sidley 7.431457431

    Cleary 7.364981201

    Hogan & Hartson 6.265566625

    Earlier: ATL March Madness for Law Firms

    Topics