\u201cSpecifically, we believe the rankings could incentivize quantitative metrics over qualitative strengths while failing to capture the most important attributes of legal work \u2014 the quality of legal service and the outcomes achieved for clients,\u201d the letter states.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Interesting decision from the firm that has dominated the top of the ranking with revenue that tops $10 billion. Kirkland was the first law firm ever to crack that mark, and per this year\u2019s Am Law 100<\/a>, it brought in $10.556 billion in 2025 (up nearly 20%) with profits per equity partner of $11.121 million. The quantitative metrics, in other words, were going great.<\/p>\n Funny how the numbers only stopped providing meaningful value once they hit 11 digits.<\/p>\n So what\u2019s really going on? Bloomberg Law has a theory<\/a>:<\/p>\n Kirkland\u2019s decision had been in the works for multiple years, according to two people. One of the people said firm leaders were wary of client response to reporting on the firm\u2019s equity partner profits, which were $11 million in its latest reporting. The metric, a purported average of how much the average equity partner makes at the firm, gives clients the false impression that junior lawyers are raking more than $10 million a year, according to the person.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n For its part, The American Lawyer told the Financial Times<\/a>, which was first to report the decision, that the ranking would continue to provide a reliable picture of the market:<\/p>\n \u201cAt every phase, including rare instances where a firm declines survey participation, we draw on the same rigorous reporting methods used in our award-winning journalism: robust engagement with the organizations we cover and serve, independent research, and deep connection with knowledgeable and trusted market sources,\u201d the publication said in a statement.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So we\u2019ll still see Kirkland in the rankings (likely still at the top, too), but someone else\u2019s sources will be filling in the numbers.<\/p>\n Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The post After Topping $10 Billion, Kirkland Decides Revenue Rankings Are Gauche<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Kirkland & Ellis \u2014 the biggest of them all, the firm that has spent years parked at the very top of Biglaw\u2019s money charts \u2014 has decided it\u2019s done showing its work. The firm told The American Lawyer it will no longer provide financial data to the media, which means no more Kirkland-supplied numbers for the Am Law 200, the annual ranking of Biglaw firms by revenue. Kirkland will join Wachtell Lipton and Slaughter & May in the freeze out of financial data to the media. <\/p>\n Firm leadership \u201cconcluded that public reporting of our revenue and profits does not provide meaningful value to our clients nor adequately reflect the caliber of our firm\u2019s legal services,\u201d according to the letter. And because one lofty sentence is never enough, the firm went on:<\/p>\n \u201cSpecifically, we believe the rankings could incentivize quantitative metrics over qualitative strengths while failing to capture the most important attributes of legal work \u2014 the quality of legal service and the outcomes achieved for clients,\u201d the letter states.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Interesting decision from the firm that has dominated the top of the ranking with revenue that tops $10 billion. Kirkland was the first law firm ever to crack that mark, and per this year\u2019s Am Law 100<\/a>, it brought in $10.556 billion in 2025 (up nearly 20%) with profits per equity partner of $11.121 million. The quantitative metrics, in other words, were going great.<\/p>\n Funny how the numbers only stopped providing meaningful value once they hit 11 digits.<\/p>\n So what\u2019s really going on? Bloomberg Law has a theory<\/a>:<\/p>\n Kirkland\u2019s decision had been in the works for multiple years, according to two people. One of the people said firm leaders were wary of client response to reporting on the firm\u2019s equity partner profits, which were $11 million in its latest reporting. The metric, a purported average of how much the average equity partner makes at the firm, gives clients the false impression that junior lawyers are raking more than $10 million a year, according to the person.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n For its part, The American Lawyer told the Financial Times<\/a>, which was first to report the decision, that the ranking would continue to provide a reliable picture of the market:<\/p>\n \u201cAt every phase, including rare instances where a firm declines survey participation, we draw on the same rigorous reporting methods used in our award-winning journalism: robust engagement with the organizations we cover and serve, independent research, and deep connection with knowledgeable and trusted market sources,\u201d the publication said in a statement.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So we\u2019ll still see Kirkland in the rankings (likely still at the top, too), but someone else\u2019s sources will be filling in the numbers.<\/p>\n Kirkland & Ellis \u2014 the biggest of them all, the firm that has spent years parked at the very top of Biglaw\u2019s money charts \u2014 has decided it\u2019s done showing its work. The firm told The American Lawyer it will no longer provide financial data to the media, which means no more Kirkland-supplied numbers for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":164552,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-164577","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164577","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=164577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164577\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/164552"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2021\/06\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2021\/03\/GettyImages-1209492113-300x185.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/figure>\n\n
\n
\n
\nKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"