Even with a seemingly endless stream of stories in the lawyer press about lay-offs at large corporate firms, the largest law firms in the United States continue to grow larger and larger.
In the National Law Journal’s recently released list of the 350 largest law firms in the United States, two Chicago-based law firms have broken through the 4000 lawyer barrier. DLA Piper leads the list with 4036 lawyers while Baker and McKenzie is close behind at 4004.
There is a considerable gap between these two firms and the next largest firm, although three law firms–Jones Day (New York), Hogan Lovells (Washington, D.C.), and Latham & Watkins–each have more than 2000 attorneys. An additional 17 firms had more than 1000.
In spite of the leap upward by DLA Piper and Baker and McKenzie, the overall growth of the top 350 was quite sluggish with only a 1.1% increase in total size since 2011. (The 2013 ranking are based on 2012 employment numbers.) Nine of the 21 largest firms are actually smaller now than a year ago and a 10th firm is exactly the same size. DLA Piper, in contrast, grew by 7.7% as it added 290 additional lawyers. However, much of its growth game through the acquisition of other law firms including firms in France and Australia.
Six Milwaukee firms made the list of 350. The top five combined declined by a single lawyer over the last year. The six are, with their national ranking:
31. Foley and Lardner (872 lawyers, down 2 from the previous year)
107. Quarles & Brady (413, same as the previous year)
202. Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren (203, up 1 lawyer)
207. Michael Best & Friedrich (198, up 2 lawyers)
233. Godfrey & Kahn (170, down 2 lawyers)
309. (5-way tie) Whyte Hirshboeck Dudek (130 lawyers, new to the list)
Even when the economy is sluggish, the dramatic growth in the size of corporate law firms, especially the largest firms, relentlessly continues. This phenomenon has been one of the most significant developments in the legal profession over the past four decades.
When I was in law school in the fall of 1976, I had an interview with the Nashville firm of Bass, Berry, and Sims. At the time, it was the largest law firm in the city of Nashville with a grand total of 17 lawyers. Today, the firm is still the largest law firm in Nashville, but it now has more than 200 lawyers (even though it did not choose to offer one of those positions to me).
I also remember, sometime around 1980, how amazed observers of the legal profession were that the Houston law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski (now Norton Rose Fulbright) had passed the 400 lawyer mark, something that had been unthinkable only a decade or two earlier. Now Piper has passed the 4000 lawyer mark.
Where this ends, nobody seems to know, but can the 10,000 lawyer firm be that far away? Of course, when this happens it will more likely be the result of a series of mergers rather than through entry level hiring.
According to recent news reports, a growing group of Chinese officials and scholars has commenced a semiofficial campaign to challenge Japanese sovereignty over Okinawa. This is of course in addition to the widely publicized Chinese efforts to challenge Japanese control over the Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands. The basis for the claim to Okinawa appears to be a combination of early history and the Cairo Declaration, which the United States, China, and the United Kingdom issued in 1943 to help prepare the post-war order in East Asia. The argument goes like this: Okinawa and the other Ryukyu Islands were originally Chinese territory because the Ryukyu Kingdom was a tributary state of the Ming and Qing Dynasties; Japan stole the Ryukyus by invading them in 1609 and formally annexing them in the late 1870s; the Allies demanded the reversion of sovereignty over Okinawa to China in 1943 by stating in the Cairo Declaration that “all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese . . . shall be restored to the Republic of China”; and Japan agreed to the reversion of sovereignty by accepting the 1945 Instrument of Surrender, which provided for the enforcement of the Cairo Declaration. In this post, I’d like to identify a few reasons why this argument is unpersuasive.