Revealed: the firms making the most money in global litigation
24 November 2008
Related Articles
Transatlantic litigation: In hot dispute
1 December 2008
UK lords at US firms: Lords on board
24 November 2008
Karp Diem: Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
24 November 2008
Revealed: the transatlantic firms on the premier litigation mandates
25 October 2010
The Transatlantic Elite 2009: The Top 50 RPP
The Lawyer Transatlantic Elite
The international firms best positioned to capitalise on the expected upsurge in cross-border litigation and arbitration can be revealed today in exclusive research by The Lawyer.
For the first time the world’s largest firms have been ranked in order of the litigation revenue they generate. The figures reveal the largest litigation practices at the leading US and UK-headquartered firms and illustrate which have placed most strategic importance on building international disputes capabilities.
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom tops the table. The US firm generated more ;revenue ;from litigation, arbitration and disputes than any other firm in the world last year.
In 2007 contentious matters at Skadden brought in ;$901m ;(£450m) ;– approximately 45 per cent of the firm’s $2bn (£1bn) firmwide revenue.
In what is arguably a more revealing yardstick than total revenue, Skadden’s revenue per lawyer (RPL) was $1.33m (£665,000), a figure that sees its ranking drop to the number five spot. In contrast, New York elite firm Cravath Swaine & Moore snared the top spot both for RPL and revenue per partner (RPP), posting $1.69m (£845,000) and $8.45m (£4.22m) respectively.
In a table dominated by US firms, the research underlines the sheer size of the US litigation market as well as the impact of the split profession on UK law firms’ litigation revenues.
Tony Williams of Jomati said: “The table clearly illustrates the real diversity between US and UK firms when it comes to litigation”. (Continues below).
(For more on the top 50 transatlantic firms by revenue per lawyer, click here).
Earlier this year The Lawyer reported that Allen & Overy (A&O) senior partner David Morley had vowed to make his firm, “the most successful of the emerging global elite” (1 September 2008). Morley said at the time that one of the core planks of that ambition was to increase the size of A&O’s litigation practice significantly, from around 10 per cent of global turnover to 15 per cent over four years.
Today’s table illustrates that even achieving that level of growth would leave A&O trailing in the disputes wake of the majority of its US rivals’.
Only four UK firms – Clifford Chance, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Herbert Smith and A&O – made it into the top 50, with litigation ;revenues ;of £199m, £177m, £151m and £122m respectively.
Those results left the UK four in nineteenth, 27th, 35th and 46th places respectively. Three of the four did significantly better in terms of RPL (with A&O jumping 38 places to eighth, Freshfields rising to fourteenth and Herbert Smith 18 places higher at number 17). Only Clifford Chance failed to better its position in the RPL rankings, with a drop to 43nd place.
Other UK firms with significant litigation practices, including Linklaters, Lovells and Clyde & Co (which registered global litigation revenues of £111m, £105m and £102m respectively for the last financial year), failed to make the top 50.
A&O global litigation head Tim House said: “The US is by far the largest and most litigious legal market in the world, so you’d expect US-based firms to have built the largest domestic litigation departments.
“Recognising the factors that make litigation such an important part of a US firm, we added a top-tier US litigation team to our New York practice just over five years ago, and the continued development of that is a key component of our growth strategy.”
In contrast to the performances of the majority of UK firms, several firms that were outside the US top 50 last year when ranked by firmwide revenue made significant showings in the litigation table. They include disputes boutique Quinn Emanuel, Howrey and Kaye Scholer.
The figures, which were based on 2007’s financial results for the US firms and the 2007-08 results for UK firms, are revealed as many litigators are predicting a surge in cross-border litigation. Despite the projected upturn, a number of firms are currently struggling with low levels of disputes work in certain areas.
Last month Clifford Chance made 20 litigation associates in its New York and Washington DC offices redundant because of what it described as “sluggishness in litigation matters”.
For more on litigation, read our features on the litigation strategies of the global elite and the London development of US players Gibson Dunn and Debevoise & Plimpton, plus our interview with Paul Weiss's Brad Karp.
To subscribe to our free Lawyer in New York email, click here. Or to stay abreast of the latest legal news, features and comment as it's published, subscribe to our free RSS feed.


Readers' comments (10)
litigator | 24-Nov-2008 12:07 pm
litigation
In my experience there is simply less will to litigate than the press makes out. We have been retained by a number of clients on matters which I suspect will not go anywhere, companies are simply hedging their bets. American firms can't expand their litigation business in Europe on such a speculative basis.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Nov-2008 5:18 pm
UK firms in the US
The only way a Magic Circle or top UK firm is going to compete on litigation with a US firm is with a merger, but a deal with one of the top US firms – ie a Debevoise or a Davis Polk is not going to happen.
Far more likely would be a merger with a litigation boutique – that would be far more sensible and easier to digest.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Nov-2008 5:30 pm
Magic circle
It's completely unrealistic to expect the magic circle to be able to compete with US firms in litigation. Clifford Chance tried to do it and were forced to lay lawyers off because they do have the reputation or the capabilities to build the right client relationships.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Nov-2008 5:32 pm
UK v US
This research shows that UK firms are no longer the rounded firms they once were.
It's no doubt going to cause them problems in during the economic downturn.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Nov-2008 7:12 pm
backup
where is the table that prsents this data (to say nothing of the data itself)?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Nov-2008 7:36 pm
Downturn
Clifford Chance is also experiencing sluggishness in the London office and has done so for quite some time. They have a reputation for charging too high fees to clients and they simply cannot compete with the US firms.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Nov-2008 8:06 pm
business model
It is quite simple really. UK firms have a totally different business model and this really highlights that. Litigation plays such an insignificant role at UK firms.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Nov-2008 8:11 pm
UK firms
The magic circle may not have the presence in the US yet but that will change. It's easy for US lawyers to say that we can't succeed in the US because at the moment it is a challenging environment. I do think our international capabilities count for a lot and will ultimately help us to succeed in the US.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Nov-2008 8:56 pm
Litigation downturn
Work has been slow in the London litigation office of CC as well. The magic circle firms are simply huge machines who do not have the capacity to build up good relationships with clients. US firms offer better quality at better rates.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Craterbaiter | 25-Nov-2008 1:58 pm
Where's the difference: naughty banker - lawyer ?
It remains a mystery why lawyers are able to charge huge fees and yet avoid deserved capital punishment for ruinous advice.
Bankers are currently the victim of choice for the maddened proletariat , but I sense more trouble when the connection is examined: between bankers, playing fast and loose with investors money, and lawyers who gave the legal advice Bankers sought, bought and used in creating the financial debacle they jointly brought down on us.
Perhaps , less gloating over partnerial windfalls and dollar earnings per company drone would go some way to lessen the prospect of a Shakespearean ending for the good, bad and downright ugly lawyers; as remote from good honest folk as bankers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment