In this article, we rank the law firms in the Global 100 for the value they deliver with software. In previous articles, we have looked at how the Global 100 offer to deliver legal services with software and how transparent the Global 100 are in pricing their legal products. In this article, we show how the Global 100 scored on both counts.
Key findings of our review for 2023 are that:
- 51% of the Global 100 have teams capable of delivering legal services with software,
- 43% have productized services and are selling them, and
- 20% are actively optimizing their own delivery of legal services.
The purpose of these rankings is not to rate individual legal products, but to identify law firms that have made the delivery of value a priority of their firm. The offer on the delivery of legal services with software and transparency on price are both necessary elements of optimizing the delivery of legal services. Without an offer that optimizes a law firm's own delivery of legal services with software, a law firm is not providing value to its clients by optimizing the delivery of its own legal services. Without transparency on price, the law firm can't scale their software.
Here's an overview of how the Global 100 stacked up at the end of last year:
Note: Law firms with no offer on the delivery of legal services with software do not show up as individual points on the graph.
In summary, there are a few firms that are both optimizing their own delivery and pursuing product pricing on at least some of their legal products. A majority of firms have teams that can optimize the delivery of legal services, but a minority of firms are offering to apply that expertise to their own delivery. A sophisticated purchaser of legal services should request that their law firms optimize their own delivery and pursue product pricing.
Ranking the Global 100 for Delivery of Legal Services with Software
In the listings below, we have ranked law firms in bands for their offer on delivery and transparency on price. The rankings are based on a mix of subjective and objective factors. As we move forward with the Partnership for Innovation, we will have more data and will move toward an objective ranking. The Partnership for Innovation is discussed in brief below and in more detail in a future article. We understand that both law firms and the companies they work for deserve an objective ranking of value, which is the purpose of the Partnership for Innovation.
 |  |
The table below shows how the Global 100 ranked on the offer on delivery and transparency on price. You can sort the results by clicking on the column headers. We have included columns on revenue, number of lawyers, revenue per lawyer, profits per partner and country with the most lawyers so that our readers can see how PartnerVine's value rankings compare to other commonly-used performance metrics for a firm.
| Name | Transparency on price | Offer on delivery | Revenue | Number of lawyers | Revenue per lawyer | Profits per partner | Country with the most lawyers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kirkland & Ellis | 10 | 10 | $6,042,000,000 | 3025 | $1,997,000 | $7,388,000 | United States |
| Latham & Watkins | 10 | 28 | $5,488,778,000 | 3078 | $1,784,000 | $5,705,000 | United States |
| DLA Piper | 35 | 58 | $3,471,437,000 | 4028 | $862,000 | $2,496,000 | United States |
| Dentons | 38 | 70 | $2,940,600,000 | 12064 | $244,000 | $379,000 | United States |
| Baker McKenzie | 33 | 40 | $3,126,729,000 | 4795 | $652,000 | $1,833,000 | United States |
| Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom | 10 | 10 | $3,022,380,000 | 1644 | $1,838,000 | $5,088,000 | United States |
| Clifford Chance | 39 | 72 | $2,711,508,000 | 2585 | $1,049,000 | $2,918,000 | United Kingdom |
| Sidley Austin | 10 | 10 | $2,795,426,000 | 1893 | $1,477,000 | $3,718,000 | United States |
| Morgan, Lewis & Bockius | 45 | 54 | $2,577,700,000 | 1992 | $1,294,000 | $1,831,000 | United States |
| Hogan Lovells | 10 | 10 | $2,605,973,000 | 2532 | $1,029,000 | $2,482,000 | United States |
| White & Case | 10 | 12 | $2,869,800,000 | 2464 | $1,165,000 | $3,509,000 | United States |
| Allen & Overy | 70 | 88 | $2,672,969,000 | 2668 | $1,002,000 | $2,684,000 | United Kingdom |
| Linklaters | 42 | 59 | $2,453,846,000 | 2405 | $1,020,000 | $2,572,000 | United Kingdom |
| Jones Day | 10 | 10 | $2,446,000,000 | 2406 | $1,017,000 | $1,446,000 | United States |
| Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher | 10 | 10 | $2,480,394,000 | 1538 | $1,613,000 | $4,440,000 | United States |
| Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer | 40 | 72 | $2,341,256,000 | 2007 | $1,166,000 | $2,691,000 | United Kingdom |
| Norton Rose Fulbright | 70 | 84 | $2,100,000,000 | 3084 | $681,000 | $1,054,000 | United States |
| Ropes & Gray | 10 | 18 | $2,674,046,000 | 1372 | $1,950,000 | $4,333,000 | United States |
| Greenberg Traurig | 10 | 20 | $2,003,790,000 | 2209 | $907,000 | $2,276,000 | United States |
| Simpson Thacher & Bartlett | 10 | 12 | $2,224,191,000 | 1,163 | $1,913,000 | $5,980,000 | United States |
| CMS | 30 | 62 | $2,065,838,000 | 4239 | $487,000 | $1,065,000 | United Kingdom |
| Weil, Gotshal & Manges | 10 | 10 | $1,856,219,000 | 1180 | $1,573,000 | $5,181,000 | United States |
| Mayer Brown | 10 | 10 | $1,840,000,000 | 1748 | $1,053,000 | $2,465,000 | United States |
| Sullivan & Cromwell | 10 | 10 | $1,765,426,000 | 797 | $2,215,000 | $6,366,000 | United States |
| Davis Polk & Wardwell | 10 | 10 | $1,970,000,000 | 1,025 | $1,923,000 | $7,010,000 | United States |
| Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison | 10 | 10 | $1,850,437,000 | 1008 | $1,836,000 | $6,162,000 | United States |
| King & Spalding | 10 | 10 | $1,828,123,000 | 1261 | $1,450,000 | $4,374,000 | United States |
| Goodwin Procter | 28 | 57 | $1,973,368,000 | 1315 | $1,501,000 | $3,690,000 | United States |
| Cooley | 72 | 90 | $1,986,777,000 | 1267 | $1,568,000 | $4,064,000 | United States |
| Paul Hastings | 10 | 10 | $1,572,304,000 | 979 | $1,606,000 | $4,703,000 | United States |
| Herbert Smith Freehills | 14 | 55 | $1,518,169,000 | 1958 | $775,000 | $1,602,000 | United Kingdom |
| Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan | 10 | 10 | $1,655,306,000 | 900 | $1,839,000 | $5,746,000 | United States |
| Reed Smith | 72 | 92 | $1,436,171,000 | 1573 | $913,000 | $1,735,000 | United States |
| Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton | 26 | 52 | $1,418,818,000 | 1051 | $1,350,000 | $4,700,000 | United States |
| Eversheds Sutherland | 28 | 60 | $1,501,490,005 | 2527 | $594,000 | $1,338,000 | United Kingdom |
| Covington & Burling | 10 | 10 | $1,501,130,000 | 1217 | $1,234,000 | $2,300,000 | United States |
| Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr | 10 | 10 | $1,297,089,000 | 863 | $1,503,000 | $2,808,000 | United States |
| McDermott, Will & Emery | 10 | 10 | $1,665,221,000 | 1177 | $1,415,000 | $3,051,000 | United States |
| Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe | 72 | 97 | $1,316,335,000 | 960 | $1,371,000 | $3,073,000 | United States |
| Morrison & Foerster | 10 | 10 | $1,234,500,000 | 996 | $1,239,000 | $2,463,000 | United States |
| Dechert | 10 | 10 | $1,341,486,000 | 928 | $1,446,000 | $4,236,000 | United States |
| Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld | 10 | 10 | $1,220,204,000 | 863 | $1,414,000 | $3,903,000 | United States |
| King & Wood Mallesons | 10 | 10 | $1,430,000,000 | 2599 | $550,000 | $511,000 | China |
| Milbank | 10 | 10 | $1,359,000,000 | 819 | $1,660,000 | $5,033,000 | United States |
| Debevoise & Plimpton | 10 | 10 | $1,329,262,000 | 788 | $1,687,000 | $5,011,000 | United States |
| Squire Patton Boggs | 10 | 10 | $1,137,000,000 | 1438 | $791,000 | $1,518,000 | United States |
| Holland & Knight | 10 | 10 | $1,402,502,000 | 1393 | $1,007,000 | $2,005,000 | United States |
| K&L Gates | 10 | 10 | $1,179,282,000 | 1698 | $694,000 | $1,381,000 | United States |
| Winston & Strawn | 26 | 51 | $1,153,207,000 | 846 | $1,364,000 | $3,021,000 | United States |
| Proskauer Rose | 10 | 10 | $1,168,371,000 | 713 | $1,639,000 | $3,510,000 | United States |
| Shearman & Sterling | 26 | 52 | $1,021,059,000 | 727 | $1,391,000 | $3,005,000 | United States |
| Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati | 57 | 92 | $1,336,000,000 | 963 | $1,388,000 | $3,318,000 | United States |
| Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer | 10 | 10 | $1,033,000,000 | 902 | $1,145,000 | $1,531,000 | United States |
| Perkins Coie | 47 | 78 | $1,155,565,000 | 1124 | $1,028,000 | $1,660,000 | United States |
| Foley & Lardner | 10 | 10 | $1,024,834,000 | 1021 | $1,004,000 | $1,812,000 | United States |
| Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz | 10 | 10 | $1,111,730,000 | 288 | $3,860,000 | $8,400,000 | United States |
| Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner | 38 | 61 | $878,433,000 | 1252 | $701,000 | $1,080,000 | United States |
| Willkie Farr & Gallagher | 10 | 10 | $1,220,000,000 | 871 | $1,401,000 | $3,903,000 | United States |
| McGuireWoods | 10 | 10 | $953,548,000 | 921 | $1,053,000 | $2,053,000 | United States |
| Kim & Chang | 10 | 10 | $1,114,516,000 | 1120 | $995,000 | $567,000 | South Korea |
| Alston & Bird | 31 | 53 | $1,023,935,000 | 829 | $1,236,000 | $3,075,000 | United States |
| O’Melveny & Myers | 51 | 76 | $911,450,000 | 670 | $1,360,000 | $2,706,000 | United States |
| Ashurst | 43 | 78 | $1,098,367,000 | 1642 | $669,000 | $1,615,000 | Australia |
| Clyde & Co | 10 | 10 | $894,660,000 | 1844 | $485,000 | $973,000 | United Kingdom |
| Cravath, Swaine & Moore | 10 | 10 | $1,001,000,000 | 492 | $2,035,000 | $5,803,000 | United States |
| Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton | 28 | 54 | $1,005,057,000 | 839 | $1,198,000 | $2,259,000 | United States |
| Vinson & Elkins | 10 | 10 | $912,337,000 | 692 | $1,318,000 | $3,508,000 | United States |
| Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson | 26 | 53 | $951,300,000 | 581 | $1,636,000 | $4,252,000 | United States |
| Yingke | 10 | 10 | $1,258,914,000 | 13299 | $95,000 | $293,000 | China |
| Hunton Andrews Kurth | 10 | 10 | $830,041,000 | 803 | $1,033,000 | $1,601,000 | United States |
| Baker Botts | 10 | 10 | $723,228,000 | 673 | $1,074,000 | $2,032,000 | United States |
| Slaughter & May | 10 | 10 | $758,741,000 | 571 | $1,329,000 | $3,599,000 | United Kingdom |
| Baker & Hostetler | 10 | 10 | $836,048,000 | 932 | $897,000 | $1,780,000 | United States |
| Seyfarth Shaw | 45 | 78 | $786,596,000 | 893 | $881,000 | $1,489,000 | United States |
| Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy | 10 | 10 | $805,682,000 | 680 | $1,185,000 | $2,768,000 | United States |
| Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman | 10 | 10 | $781,406,000 | 651 | $1,200,000 | $2,105,000 | United States |
| Katten Muchin Rosenman | 40 | 51 | $713,854,000 | 631 | $1,132,000 | $2,006,000 | United States |
| Venable | 10 | 10 | $717,018,000 | 743 | $965,000 | $1,235,000 | United States |
| Gowling WLG | 95 | 94 | $700,588,000 | 1255 | $558,000 | $649,000 | Canada |
| Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith | 10 | 10 | $722,500,000 | 1613 | $448,000 | $1,226,000 | United States |
| Pinsent Masons | 36 | 92 | $731,006,000 | 1723 | $424,000 | $970,000 | United Kingdom |
| Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo | 10 | 10 | $588,500,000 | 488 | $1,206,000 | $2,102,000 | United States |
| Littler Mendelson | 92 | 100 | $658,578,000 | 986 | $668,000 | $621,000 | United States |
| Polsinelli | 32 | 52 | $697,318,000 | 868 | $804,000 | $1,406,000 | United States |
| Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough | 43 | 63 | $680,826,000 | 778 | $875,000 | $1,704,000 | United States |
| Fox Rothschild | 46 | 78 | $650,000,000 | 882 | $737,000 | $932,000 | United States |
| Troutman Pepper | 26 | 51 | $1,029,503,000 | 1121 | $918,000 | $1,386,000 | United States |
| Zhong Lun | 10 | 10 | $731,692,000 | 2310 | $317,000 | $614,000 | China |
| Blake, Cassels & Graydon | 10 | 23 | $669,240,000 | 624 | $1,073,000 | $921,000 | Canada |
| Faegre Drinker | 10 | 10 | $987,708,000 | 1093 | $904,000 | $984,000 | United States |
| Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart | 48 | 89 | $585,198,000 | 873 | $670,000 | $1,051,000 | United States |
| Cozen O’Connor | 27 | 54 | $584,802,000 | 701 | $834,000 | $1,097,000 | United States |
| Duane Morris | 10 | 10 | $596,590,000 | 723 | $825,000 | $1,262,000 | United States |
| AllBright Law Offices | 10 | 10 | $919,886,000 | 3715 | $248,000 | $777,000 | China |
| Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft | 10 | 10 | $608,953,000 | 413 | $1,474,000 | $4,382,000 | United States |
| Deheng Law Offices | 10 | 10 | $620,078,000 | 4015 | $154,000 | $405,000 | China |
| Simmons & Simmons | 92 | 92 | $640,026,000 | 946 | $677,000 | $1,376,000 | United Kingdom |
| Grandall Law Firm | 10 | 10 | $620,078,000 | 4134 | $150,000 | $364,000 | China |
| Fenwick & West | 68 | 78 | $723,228,000 | 427 | $1,692,000 | $3,743,000 | United States |
| Bird & Bird | 65 | 78 | $613,324,000 | 1347 | $455,000 | $900,000 | United Kingdom |
Note that the defintion of the Global 100 and the columns regarding revenue, number of lawyers, revenue per lawyer, profits per partner and country with the most lawyers are 2021 figures from Law.com. American Lawyer has published 2022 figures which are available for subscription on their website.
The Partnership for Innovation
Through a program called the Partnership for Innovation, we help companies and their law firms optimize the delivery of legal services with software. One part of that program is called Innovation Intelligence, which helps companies calculate the value law firms deliver with software. Innovation Intelligence is based on actual use, so it requires a company to gather data on how their employees use software that delivers legal services. It is the best way to calculate the value a law firm delivers to a company, and companies have an interest in understanding that value because the savings from software overwhelmingly benefit them. When we discuss the benefits of calculating the value delivered with software, we sometimes get asked the state of the market for the delivery of legal services with software. We did this research for companies trying to understand the state of the market.
If you have comments to this article, you can comment by clicking on "write a comment" below. If you'd like to read the previous articles in the series, you can find them by clicking on the links below:
If you'd like to discuss this series of articles or how the Partnership for Innovation would work for your law firm or company, contact us.