This column is by Janet Stanton, Partner, Adam Smith, Esq.
We generally eschew commenting on daily comings-and-goings in Law Land. We make an exception here, because this is actually huge news.
I’m speaking about Kirkland’s decision to stop disclosing financial info in the US. And unlike the many firms that don’t report to the AmLaw, Kirkland had the moxie to say so publicly. Freshfields’ similar move in 2023 caused nary a ripple because they’re not a traditional AmLaw firm.
But Kirkland is the world’s largest (by revenue) and one of the boldest (baddest?); attention will be paid.
We think Kirkland’s rationale is exactly right as they said the information does not provide “meaningful value” to its clients.
What, you may ask – aren’t you guys in favor of transparency?
Of course we are. The problem with the AmLaw rankings is that they are seriously flawed and, therefore, not reliable. How so are they flawed? One big research no-no is that the AmLaw does not disclose which firms choose not to participate (a simple asterisk could identify those firms). Moreover, we know many firms are not fully compliant (or even close) in their submissions.
The AmLaw rankings have been contentious likely from the moment they were introduced in 1985 (then just the AmLaw 50) for a variety of fair and unfair reasons. Certainly the paucity of sound data in Law Land is more than unfortunate. That said, I leave it to others to argue if flawed data is better than no data.
Image generated by Gemini AI
