mUCH LIKE THEIR Am Law 100 coun- terparts, Second Hundred firms truggled in 2009 under the twin
burdens of decreased transactional work and
increased client sensitivity to litigation costs.
With their regional footprints and (in some
cases) more narrow practice focuses, Second
Hundred firms had better year-over-year rates
of growth than Am Law 100 firms as the recession took hold during 2008 [“Where the
Work Was,” June 2009]. But in 2009 the Second Hundred stumbled in two key areas. Its
average profits per partner fell 0.3 percent, to
$646,926, while The Am Law 100’s rose 0.3
percent. Second Hundred revenue per lawyer dropped 2 percent, to $575,855, a slightly
worse showing than The Am Law 100’s 1.9
percent fall.
However, Second Hundred firms posted
a smaller drop in compensation–all partners
than Am Law 100 firms—1.1 percent, compared to The Am Law 100’s 1.7 percent, and
value per lawyer grew 2. 3 percent at Second
Hundred firms, compared to 1.8 percent at
The Am Law 100.
For both sets of firms, the numbers reflect
widespread cost-cutting, but it appears that
The Am Law 100’s cuts had a slightly greater
effect. The pivotal factor may be head count:
Total head count grew 1 percent at the Sec-
ond Hundred, while it fell 1 percent at The
Am Law 100. The Second Hundred increased
its equity partner ranks by 1.9 percent, while
The Am Law 100 cut its by 0.7 percent.
NO PLACE TO HIDE
The recession’s impact wasn’t confined to the nation’s
top 100 firms — The Second Hundred felt the pain too.
By DREW COMBS
