The global elite. Every law firm wants to be in it, but few can define it. Most law firm leaders agree a breakaway group of firms will dominate the global market in the years to come—firms with large revenues and international capability combined with leading reputations, key client relationships and high profits. But that is where the consensus ends. The criteria seems to shift depending on who it suits. Law.com decided to take a more empirical approach. Taking the latest Global 200 numbers, Law.com‘s intelligence department analysed various aspects of firm performance, including: revenue, total lawyers, revenue per lawyer, profit per lawyer, profit per equity partner, the number of countries a firm operates in, and the distribution of those lawyers across the world. Scale, Size and Reach The most obvious starting point is to look at which firms have global scale, size and reach. The strength of having a big balance sheet allows them to invest in technology and to poach and reward the best talent as well as making them less reliant on any one sector or geography. It also enables firms to offer services to clients wherever they need advice. This isn’t just about revenue and the number of lawyers a firm has, although both are valid measures, it is also about the number of countries in which a firm operates and where those lawyers are based: by this measure, the world’s largest firm by revenue, Kirkland & Ellis, ranks below Latham & Watkins, White & Case and A&O Shearman due to its smaller international footprint. These are the one-stop-shop firms, the institutions that tend to advise clients on almost all matters all over the world. Global firms like Freshfields, Linklaters, Clifford Chance, DLA Piper and Baker McKenzie don’t want to miss out on the action in any key market. Their differentiator is their self-sufficiency, and that their brand is known in every region.

Such scale is crucial for firms that want to be in the global elite, according to Freshfields’ global managing partner Alan Mason. Alan Mason of Freshfields. Courtesy photo "We are seeing a bifurcation in the industry where winners take more share. It is never 100% binary but looking at a 'global elite' focuses the mind firmly on which firms are going to come out on top in a disruptive market. "What's driving the global elite is coming from clients responding to macro trends such as tech regulation, geo-political uncertainty and regulatory burdens. You can be the best lawyer in a particular practice area in one place but that is not enough if you cannot service your clients globally on the most strategic matters for them. "This was not the case five to 10 years ago. In the past it would have been easier for a firm to team up with another firm. But the world is a more complex place for clients now. It doesn't matter where an issue occurs or on what topic. If it is strategic for your clients, you have to have a top-tier offering in the relevant practice area and country to be able to service your clients’ needs at the highest level. Profitability and Productivity “Yes, but…" Any conversation around defining the global elite elicits that opener at least a few times. The firms that are the reason for “yes, but”—those of limited scale and reach, but of undeniably sterling reputation—can be found in the next ranking. Sterling reputation, it turns out, often manifests in earning power: The firms are profitable and productive. Leaders of some of the most powerful and top-earning law firms in the world will gush (albeit privately) about roughly 270-lawyer Wachtell , reputed for working the biggest M&A deals and the poster child for “yes, but.” It ranks 61st in the latest Global 200 ranking, despite being a fraction of the size of the firms listed around it. It has the highest revenue per lawyer in the First Hundred (compared with “size, scale and reach” performer Dentons). Sullivan & Cromwell has a proud yet somewhat limited global presence–but with its recent U.K. hires, that could be about to change. We could call that the Paul Weiss method of crashing onto the international scene, but it bears pointing out that Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, for all the waves it has made in London’s private capital market, still doesn’t stack up to other firms when judged more purely on size and scale. Meanwhile, firms like Davis Polk, Simpson Thacher and Paul Hastings showcase very strong financials and undoubtedly have meaningful international strategies, but haven’t achieved the reach of the first group. There’s also Cravath, a law firm name long synonymous with prestige, which rounds out the top 15 in this subcategory. And of course, there’s Kirkland–which, despite its size and reach, boasts enviable per-lawyer metrics, including a 2025 Am Law 100-leading PEP north of $9 billion. There are some firms that overlap in these first and second lists. Global, But Less Profitable The overlap between the top 15 in each of the above tables is just 40%. So which factor is more important, scale or profitability? It is clear that some scale almost always accompanies high levels of PEP. Nine out of 10 of the top 50 highest-ranked firms by PEP have revenues of $1 billion or more. This makes sense given their revenue per lawyer tends to be higher than average and it is relatively easy for them to expand by bringing in rainmaking laterals. High PEP typically accompanies scale as well. If you are a law firm with revenues of $2 billion or more, there’s a 75% chance that you will also be in the top 50 firms by PEP. While some firms, such as the elite Manhattan firms, post high levels of profitability despite relatively small size, there are no firms with revenue of $3 billion or more that have PEP of less than $2 million. Almost all of those 11 ultra-large firms are in the top half of the Global 100 PEP rankings. It stands to reason that large firms might be profitable given their cross-selling ability to clients, their strong international brands, and their ability to easily cover costs. That said, scale alone doesn’t ensure high levels of profitability. In fact, some firms—especially those that operate as vereins—could be accused of aiming for scale at the expense of profit. The firms with the biggest gap between their scale score and their profit score are in this chart. It is led by firms including Dentons, CMS and Clyde & Co, and also features Chinese firms China Commercial Law Firm and Yingke.