best firm growth for the future? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi, what firm do you think is best positioned for the next 10 years based on previous growth etc? Some say Kirkland just based on huge growth last year? What do people think

[jhett]

Hold on, let me invent that time machine and I'll get back to you.

Seriously, no answer anyone can give will be accurate beyond 1-2 years. There's just too many variables involved.

[Johann]

outside the mega firms, there is probably some debate. but i dont think theres any debate the mega-firms at a general level will continue separating from the pack -- Kirkland, Latham, Skadden, should continue crushing. The other top NY based firms will always be steady since its the legal capitol of the world.

lit boutiques, IP boutiques, and other non-powerhouses are anyone's best guess and will be dependent on where the legal market heads and whcih firms have the right groups/partners.

[DougEvans789]

Out of curiosity, why would it be a good thing to work at the firm with the most aggressive growth? That doesn't seem obvious to me.

[ghostoftraynor]

Lol I like how in the law people shit on firms for gaining market share as "aggressive growth." Neither Latham or Kirkland are rapidly spreading their footprint--just gaining a greater share of work. Hard to see how that is a negative.

It's amazing how much "old money" sensibilities pervade in big law.

[notDINGBAT]

That's a really bad question. At one point, Dewey was the fastest growing firm

The better question is how stable is a firm, and how is it growing.
If a firm is growing too aggressively, there's a risk they can't handle it.
If growth is coming from poaching partners, those partners could leave at a moment's notice

If a firm is growing organically and slowly, turning associates into partners rather than adding outside partners, that's far better

[nealric]

Hi, what firm do you think is best positioned for the next 10 years based on previous growth etc? Some say Kirkland just based on huge growth last year? What do people think

Your odds of doing this are a going to be about as successful as choosing the next hot stock. Actually worse, because at least public companies have to publish audited financials.

[rpupkin]

Lol I like how in the law people shit on firms for gaining market share as "aggressive growth." Neither Latham or Kirkland are rapidly spreading their footprint--just gaining a greater share of work.

They're both adding attorneys, as you would expect. What do you mean by "footprint"?

[Lincoln]

That's a really bad question. At one point, Dewey was the fastest growing firm

The better question is how stable is a firm, and how is it growing.
If a firm is growing too aggressively, there's a risk they can't handle it.
If growth is coming from poaching partners, those partners could leave at a moment's notice

If a firm is growing organically and slowly, turning associates into partners rather than adding outside partners, that's far better

The bolded is especially true if the growth is built on giving lateral partners distribution guarantees. That's often what is happening when rainmakers leave pure lockstep firms.

When times are tough, the non-lockstep firm has to take from other partners to satisfy the guarantees promised to new laterals. Those other partners then feel (rightly) they are not getting their fair share, and leave (to the extent they have a book of business) for somewhere where they will. And all of sudden, Dewey.

[notDINGBAT]

That's a really bad question. At one point, Dewey was the fastest growing firm

The better question is how stable is a firm, and how is it growing.
If a firm is growing too aggressively, there's a risk they can't handle it.
If growth is coming from poaching partners, those partners could leave at a moment's notice

If a firm is growing organically and slowly, turning associates into partners rather than adding outside partners, that's far better

The bolded is especially true if the growth is built on giving lateral partners distribution guarantees. That's often what is happening when rainmakers leave pure lockstep firms.

When times are tough, the non-lockstep firm has to take from other partners to satisfy the guarantees promised to new laterals. Those other partners then feel (rightly) they are not getting their fair share, and leave (to the extent they have a book of business) for somewhere where they will. And all of sudden, Dewey.

a lot of firms provide some king of origination bonus beyond lock-step, which is reasonable. But the guaranteed distributions are a huge problem.
Mergers are also interesting - some firm mergers are great, others are a disaster. It really depends on the synergies and competing interests

[lolwat]

That's a really bad question. At one point, Dewey was the fastest growing firm

The better question is how stable is a firm, and how is it growing.
If a firm is growing too aggressively, there's a risk they can't handle it.
If growth is coming from poaching partners, those partners could leave at a moment's notice

If a firm is growing organically and slowly, turning associates into partners rather than adding outside partners, that's far better

Generally agree with all of this.

[charliekelly33]

That's a really bad question. At one point, Dewey was the fastest growing firm

The better question is how stable is a firm, and how is it growing.
If a firm is growing too aggressively, there's a risk they can't handle it.
If growth is coming from poaching partners, those partners could leave at a moment's notice

If a firm is growing organically and slowly, turning associates into partners rather than adding outside partners, that's far better

Generally agree with all of this.

To be fair though, OP's question was broad -- best positioned firm based on prior growth. The question was not: who's the fastest grower and that's a good thing full stop. Obviously, Dewey-style growth is a bad thing, but Kirkland/Latham growth numbers are not dangerous just because they're big. Nobody on this thread really has the information to argue that their growth is not sustainable/healthy.

[Desert Fox]

A partner I worked with lateraled to a new firm last year. I dunno how. He had literally no book of business, just scamming work off firm clients. He brought over one case from a firm client that settled in two months. And then literally hasn't gotten a case in 18 months. I hope that firm didn't prepay him for that shit lol.

One of the associates who went with has billed 200 hours in 18 months. lulz.

[notDINGBAT]

A partner I worked with lateraled to a new firm last year. I dunno how. He had literally no book of business, just scamming work off firm clients. He brought over one case from a firm client that settled in two months. And then literally hasn't gotten a case in 18 months. I hope that firm didn't prepay him for that shit lol.

One of the associates who went with has billed 200 hours in 18 months. lulz.

I hope that associate bails before s/he gets shitcanned

[lolwat]

That's a really bad question. At one point, Dewey was the fastest growing firm

The better question is how stable is a firm, and how is it growing.
If a firm is growing too aggressively, there's a risk they can't handle it.
If growth is coming from poaching partners, those partners could leave at a moment's notice

If a firm is growing organically and slowly, turning associates into partners rather than adding outside partners, that's far better

Generally agree with all of this.

To be fair though, OP's question was broad -- best positioned firm based on prior growth. The question was not: who's the fastest grower and that's a good thing full stop. Obviously, Dewey-style growth is a bad thing, but Kirkland/Latham growth numbers are not dangerous just because they're big. Nobody on this thread really has the information to argue that their growth is not sustainable/healthy.

Yeah. I get it. I just think it's the wrong thing to ask, unless the OP is trying to decide between a few firms that had huge growth or something.