Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Law Firm Directory
Apply to Paul, Weiss
Forums
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
🚨 Reed Smith has just announced its Direct Training Contract route!
The deadline is
20th June
.
👉
Read Becca's announcement post here
📝
Apply directly here
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Applications Discussion
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="xMontmorency" data-source="post: 203972" data-attributes="member: 32743"><p>I agree, PEP is probably a reliable way of measuring the prestige - or at least the profitability of a firm. But I think there is a better metric - billable rates.</p><p></p><p>The main problem with PEP is that it is just shows the overall profits available for distribution to equity partners. This means that the results are skewed depending on how many equity partners a law firm has. Firms that are highly leveraged on associates (e.g. associate/counsel to partner ratio of 5+ to 1) or non-equity partners will have higher PEP, with more junior lawyers churning out the cash for the equity partners. The other problem is that it doesn't account for different profits levels in different geographic regions, where profits are equally distributed between offices which bring in different levels of revenue (assuming no swiss model).</p><p></p><p>The real thing you want to know is (i) whether the firm can land the top mandates and (ii) whether they can charge more for each hour worked at each level. Firms with high PEP (US firms) tend to fulfil these criteria, but in London elite MC firms with lower PEP do too. A firm like FF or CC would be able to charge out a partner at c£1,300-£1,500+/hr and senior associates / counsel for c£1000/hr in their top practice areas (private equity, corporate). Comparable US firms - Weil, K&E, STB - wouldn't be too far off. So the 'prestige' of those firms' practices are quite similar. And it shows: they land similar mandates and are in tough competition with each other. It would be a different story if we compared these rates to, say, Jones Day or Goodwin's corporate/PE practices (no offence). There is one caveat: you need to adjust for the discounts law firms give their clients (i.e. take the WACC, which represents the real rates charged post-discounts). The fact that these figures are usually confidential means PEP remains the gold standard. </p><p></p><p>I have no idea what the billable rates are at K&E or Davis Polk, so it's all speculation, but I have a feeling Davis Polk has higher average rates.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="xMontmorency, post: 203972, member: 32743"] I agree, PEP is probably a reliable way of measuring the prestige - or at least the profitability of a firm. But I think there is a better metric - billable rates. The main problem with PEP is that it is just shows the overall profits available for distribution to equity partners. This means that the results are skewed depending on how many equity partners a law firm has. Firms that are highly leveraged on associates (e.g. associate/counsel to partner ratio of 5+ to 1) or non-equity partners will have higher PEP, with more junior lawyers churning out the cash for the equity partners. The other problem is that it doesn't account for different profits levels in different geographic regions, where profits are equally distributed between offices which bring in different levels of revenue (assuming no swiss model). The real thing you want to know is (i) whether the firm can land the top mandates and (ii) whether they can charge more for each hour worked at each level. Firms with high PEP (US firms) tend to fulfil these criteria, but in London elite MC firms with lower PEP do too. A firm like FF or CC would be able to charge out a partner at c£1,300-£1,500+/hr and senior associates / counsel for c£1000/hr in their top practice areas (private equity, corporate). Comparable US firms - Weil, K&E, STB - wouldn't be too far off. So the 'prestige' of those firms' practices are quite similar. And it shows: they land similar mandates and are in tough competition with each other. It would be a different story if we compared these rates to, say, Jones Day or Goodwin's corporate/PE practices (no offence). There is one caveat: you need to adjust for the discounts law firms give their clients (i.e. take the WACC, which represents the real rates charged post-discounts). The fact that these figures are usually confidential means PEP remains the gold standard. I have no idea what the billable rates are at K&E or Davis Polk, so it's all speculation, but I have a feeling Davis Polk has higher average rates. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Applications Discussion
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…