K&L Gates posts small rises in revenue and PEP
K&L Gates has posted increases in both revenue and average profit per equity partner (PEP) for the 2010 financial year.
Peter Kalis
The firm’s total revenue grew 2 per cent from $1.034bn in 2009 to $1.055bn. Average PEP was up 8 per cent from $ 861,000 to $930,000.
K&L Gates chairman Peter Kalis said the increase in PEP had been achieved without cutting equity partners or any significant reduction in fee-earners. Without a major cost-cutting programme during 2010, K&L Gates’ fee-earner numbers actually increased last year.
“We achieved the increase in revenue and profit the old-fashioned way: surprisingly solid pricing and more client work,” Kalis said. “Most of the cuts we’ve had to do were in the prior year.”
Kalis said his firm’s busiest areas last year included litigation, regulatory and investigations as well as IP litigation.
“Our transactional practices also returned nicely during the year,” added Kalis. “Not just corporate and M&A, but also real estate. It wasn’t at 2006 levels but it took a very positive step forward.”
This is the 16th consecutive year in which K&L Gates has shown year-on-year increases in revenue and PEP. The firm’s revenue growth is reflected in its continued expansion, with office openings in Moscow, Tokyo and Warsaw during 2010 and Brussels, K&L Gates’ 37th office, on1 February this year (1 February 2011).
Readers' comments (3)
Onlooker | 11-Feb-2011 11:25 am
Still feel K&L is one substantial London-based merger away from being a serious player.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Feb-2011 12:30 pm
Yes I agree - the London office is still very much in the lowly league of the pre merger Nicholson Graham & Jones. And elsewhere the firm also lacks prestige – being positioned at a sort of Eversheds equivalent level.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stephen Pipes | 11-Feb-2011 1:44 pm
I agree with the above comments. K&L has seen the way that the world is rapidly heading and built a great platform in temrs of scale and international reach but now needs to push up in terms of profile and quality of transactions.
The comparison with Eversheds is spot on, another firm which has achieved great things in a short period of time but which needs a merger with a corporate-orientated firm (and then with a U.S. firm).
Similar firms are Reed Smith, DLA Piper, Baker & McKenzie and Jones Day.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment