On
a nationwide basis, in 2007 major law firms employed one associate for
every partner, and the overall ratio of lawyers to partners was
somewhat more than 2 to 1 (2.21). This is similar to the level of
leverage last seen in the legal marketplace in 1998. Between 1999 and
2005, law firms reported relatively higher leverage ratios. (See Table
1.) While the fluctuation in these figures is obvious, the reasons for
the fluctuation are less so.
Not
surprisingly, regardless of the measure used, on average, larger law
firms leverage their partners with associates and other lawyers to a
greater degree than do smaller firms. For example, the ratio of
associates to partners in firms of 250 or fewer lawyers is about 0.7.
Leverage figures are substantially higher for firms of 501 or more
lawyers. In firms of more than 700 lawyers, the figure is about double,
at 1.39. A measure based on all lawyers shows a similar progression,
from 1.88 to 2.61. (See Table 2.)
This is according to recent analyses of the 2007-2008 NALP Directory of Legal Employers, the
annual compendium of legal employer information published by NALP. The 2007-2008 Directory
represents over 135,000 lawyers in more than 1,500 law offices
nationwide, primarily, though not exclusively, in firms of more than
100 lawyers. The analyses reveal that, whether measured as the ratio of
all lawyers to partners, as the ratio of associates to partners, or as
the ratio of other lawyers, e.g., of counsel, senior and staff
attorneys, to partners, law firms vary widely in their mix of lawyers.
City averages for leverage vary from city to city. Among the cities with the greatest representation in the Directory,
lawyer/partner ratios ranged from a low of about 1.6 in Birmingham,
Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, and New Orleans, to a high of 3.15 in New York
City. Leverage in a number of cities, including Detroit, Minneapolis,
Portland, OR, Seattle, and Tampa/St. Petersburg, is just slightly
higher, in the 1.68 to 1.80 range. On the high end, however, only San
Jose comes close to matching the leverage levels of New York City
firms. Most of the other cities are not too far from the national
average of 2.21.
Likewise,
only in New York City does the ratio of associates to partners begin to
approach 2.0 (1.85). San Jose is second at 1.70. The list bottoms out
at less than 0.5 in Detroit and Grand Rapids. This measure of leverage
is less than 1.0 in a number of cities.
Since leverage is
generally higher in larger firms, differences between cities reflect to
some extent differences in size composition. However, similarities with
respect to firm size don’t necessarily translate into similar leverage
figures. For example, looking at cities with a similar percentage of
offices from firms with more than 250 lawyers, such as Austin, New
York, Los Angeles, and Raleigh/Durham, leverage levels are very
different, ranging from just over 2.0 in Austin, to 3.15 in New York.
The prevalence of offices in firms of more than 250 lawyers is highest
in Northern Virginia and the San Jose area, but leverage stands at 2.05
in the former and 2.91 in the latter. Thus, while this information is
among the most comprehensive available, it does not readily provide
insight into other factors that likely play a role in determining the
leverage decisions of an individual firm, nor the reasons for the
averages in a given area. However, these figures do provide a useful
description of the current application of leverage within the nation’s
major law firms, and how it has varied in the past decade.
The 2007-2008 NALP Directory of Legal Employers, which provides the individual firm listings
on which the 2007 aggregate analyses are based, is available online at www.nalpdirectory.com.
Table 1. Law Firm Leverage Nationwide — 1995-2007
|
Ratio of Lawyers
to Partners |
Ratio of Associates
to Partners |
# of Offices |
| 1995 |
2.15 |
0.99 |
993 |
| 1996 |
2.18 |
1.01 |
921 |
| 1997 |
2.18 |
1.01 |
1,053 |
| 1998 |
2.23 |
1.04 |
1,154 |
| 1999 |
2.32 |
1.12 |
1,258 |
| 2000 |
2.47 |
1.11 |
1,319 |
| 2001 |
2.37 |
1.15 |
1,322 |
| 2002 |
2.38 |
1.16 |
1,346 |
| 2003 |
2.33 |
1.12 |
1,391 |
| 2004 |
2.29 |
1.07 |
1,392 |
| 2005 |
2.24 |
1.02 |
1,452 |
| 2006 |
2.19 |
0.99 |
1,523 |
| 2007 |
2.21 |
0.99 |
1,562 |
Table 2. Law Firm Leverage — 2007
|
# of Lawyers |
Ratio of
lawyers to
partners |
Ratio of
associates to
partners |
Ratio of
other lawyers to
partners |
# of Offices |
% of offices in firms of 251+ |
| Total |
135,170 |
2.21 |
0.99 |
0.21 |
1,562 |
— |
| By Size of Firm: |
| 50 or fewer lawyers |
4,704 |
1.88 |
0.72 |
0.16 |
155 |
— |
| 51-100 lawyers |
10,089 |
1.83 |
0.68 |
0.16 |
156 |
— |
| 101-250 lawyers |
29,412 |
1.87 |
0.68 |
0.18 |
300 |
— |
| 251-500 lawyers |
29,287 |
2.13 |
0.89 |
0.24 |
374 |
— |
| 501-700 lawyers |
18,109 |
2.53 |
1.26 |
0.27 |
178 |
— |
| 701+ lawyers |
43,569 |
2.61 |
1.39 |
0.23 |
399 |
— |
| Offices in: |
| Atlanta |
3,866 |
2.19 |
0.99 |
0.19 |
43 |
59.1 |
| Austin |
974 |
2.03 |
0.83 |
0.20 |
21 |
76.2 |
| Baltimore |
995 |
1.81 |
0.62 |
0.19 |
11 |
54.5 |
| Birmingham |
598 |
1.63 |
0.50 |
0.14 |
8 |
22.2 |
| Boston area |
4,575 |
2.37 |
1.16 |
0.20 |
37 |
63.2 |
| Charlotte |
1,358 |
2.18 |
0.96 |
0.22 |
20 |
55.0 |
| Chicago |
8,663 |
1.96 |
0.83 |
0.13 |
63 |
59.4 |
| Cincinnati |
834 |
1.83 |
0.64 |
0.19 |
12 |
53.8 |
| Cleveland |
1,417 |
2.07 |
0.84 |
0.22 |
13 |
53.8 |
| Columbus |
1,104 |
1.95 |
0.72 |
0.24 |
13 |
53.8 |
| Dallas |
3,254 |
2.23 |
1.03 |
0.20 |
39 |
70.0 |
| Denver |
1,290 |
1.98 |
0.75 |
0.23 |
24 |
56.0 |
| Detroit area |
1,656 |
1.68 |
0.49 |
0.19 |
15 |
33.3 |
| Ft. Lauderdale/W. Palm Beach |
481 |
1.86 |
0.67 |
0.19 |
18 |
57.9 |
| Grand Rapids |
610 |
1.63 |
0.39 |
0.25 |
9 |
22.2 |
| Hartford |
681 |
2.06 |
0.84 |
0.22 |
15 |
41.2 |
| Houston |
3,040 |
2.17 |
0.94 |
0.22 |
40 |
71.4 |
| Indianapolis |
1,358 |
1.87 |
0.61 |
0.26 |
13 |
15.4 |
| Kansas City area |
1,510 |
1.92 |
0.58 |
0.35 |
13 |
64.3 |
| Las Vegas |
428 |
2.45 |
1.27 |
0.17 |
16 |
25.0 |
| Los Angeles area |
5,975 |
2.46 |
1.26 |
0.19 |
86 |
75.3 |
| Miami |
1,475 |
1.92 |
0.80 |
0.12 |
25 |
60.0 |
| Milwaukee |
1,242 |
1.66 |
0.59 |
0.07 |
9 |
22.2 |
| Minneapolis/St. Paul |
2,483 |
1.76 |
0.61 |
0.15 |
25 |
28.0 |
| Nashville |
699 |
1.85 |
0.72 |
0.14 |
9 |
40.0 |
| New Orleans |
645 |
1.66 |
0.52 |
0.13 |
10 |
30.0 |
| New York City |
23,119 |
3.15 |
1.85 |
0.30 |
143 |
75.3 |
| Northern NJ/Newark area |
2,827 |
2.44 |
1.16 |
0.27 |
28 |
42.9 |
| Northern Virginia |
900 |
2.05 |
0.90 |
0.15 |
22 |
86.4 |
| Orange Co., CA |
1,373 |
2.30 |
1.16 |
0.14 |
32 |
65.6 |
| Orlando |
472 |
1.87 |
0.69 |
0.18 |
9 |
66.7 |
| Philadelphia |
2,941 |
2.42 |
1.10 |
0.32 |
22 |
61.5 |
| Phoenix |
1,436 |
1.83 |
0.71 |
0.12 |
20 |
50.0 |
| Pittsburgh |
1,161 |
1.99 |
0.80 |
0.19 |
12 |
69.2 |
| Portland, OR area |
1,068 |
1.79 |
0.65 |
0.14 |
22 |
27.3 |
| Raleigh/Durham |
480 |
2.19 |
0.74 |
0.45 |
12 |
76.9 |
| Richmond |
942 |
1.94 |
0.76 |
0.18 |
10 |
45.5 |
| Sacramento |
360 |
2.21 |
0.95 |
0.26 |
10 |
60.0 |
| Salt Lake City |
351 |
2.05 |
0.97 |
0.08 |
10 |
50.0 |
| San Diego |
1,369 |
2.41 |
1.23 |
0.18 |
24 |
70.8 |
| San Francisco |
4,380 |
2.32 |
1.12 |
0.20 |
65 |
69.7 |
| San Jose area |
2,464 |
2.91 |
1.70 |
0.20 |
41 |
87.8 |
| Seattle area |
1,872 |
1.78 |
0.64 |
0.15 |
33 |
36.4 |
| St. Louis |
1,485 |
1.96 |
0.78 |
0.18 |
10 |
60.0 |
| Tampa/St. Petersburg |
805 |
1.68 |
0.60 |
0.08 |
17 |
47.1 |
| Washington, D.C. |
14,113 |
2.40 |
1.10 |
0.31 |
136 |
79.0 |
| Wilmington |
765 |
2.20 |
1.04 |
0.16 |
17 |
52.9 |
| States: |
| Other areas in California |
540 |
2.19 |
1.02 |
0.17 |
10 |
40.0 |
| Other areas in Connecticut |
552 |
1.91 |
0.76 |
0.15 |
15 |
53.3 |
| Kentucky |
1,035 |
1.92 |
0.61 |
0.31 |
7 |
42.9 |
| Other areas in New York State |
1,485 |
1.81 |
0.59 |
0.22 |
16 |
31.3 |
| Other areas in Texas |
576 |
1.84 |
0.65 |
0.19 |
14 |
64.3 |
Source: The 2007-2008 NALP Directory of Legal Employers.
For law firms that repeated firmwide demographic information for each
office listing, demographic information was retained for just one
office to avoid double counting. Some city information includes one or
more offices in adjacent suburbs. Orange County includes offices in
Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach. The San Jose area includes
offices in Cupertino, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Palo Alto and E. Palo
Alto, Redwood Shores/Redwood City, San Jose, and Sunnyvale. The
Northern New Jersey/Newark area includes offices in Newark, Livingston,
Saddle Brook, Roseland, West Orange, Florham Park, Hackensack,
Morristown, Parsippany, Short Hills, Westfield, Bridgewater, Somerset,
and Woodbridge. Northern Virginia includes offices in Falls Church,
McLean/Tysons Corner, Reston, Vienna, and Alexandria. State figures
exclude cities reported separately.
|