1. Home
2. Daily News
3. This law firm is ranked No. 1 after posting…

Law Firms

This law firm is ranked No. 1 after posting $8.8B in gross revenue; which other firms are ‘category leaders’?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 16, 2025, 9:52 am CDT

Kirkland & Ellis is once again ranked No. 1 for gross revenue in 2024, according to the American Lawyer’s Am Law 100.

Kirkland & Ellis had $8.8 billion in gross revenue, “almost jumping straight into $9 billion territory,” Law.com reports in a story that is one of several reports on the findings.

Other “category leaders” are Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, which had the highest revenue per lawyer, at $4.47 million, and Kirkland & Ellis, which had the highest profits per equity partner, at $9.25 million.

Law firms “crushed it” based on financial performance in 2024, the article reports. The nation’s 100 top-grossing firms increased revenue by 13.3% last year, increased lawyer head count by 7.7%, and increased revenue per lawyer by 5.2%.

While revenue increased an average of 13.3% for the top 100 firms, only 20 firms gained that amount or more, according to firm consultants Bruce MacEwan and Janet Stanton, who spoke with Law.com. The other 80 were below that level. MacEwan is the president of Adam Smith Esq., and Stanton is a partner in the organization.

The top five firms for gross revenue are:

1. Kirkland & Ellis, $8.8 billion, up about 22% from 2023

2. Latham & Watkins, $7 billion, up about 23% from 2023

3. DLA Piper, $4.2 billion, up nearly 11% from 2023

4. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, $3.6 billion, up about 12% from 2023

5. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, $3.5 billion, up nearly 16% from 2023

The top firms for revenue per lawyer are:

1. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, $4.47 million

2. Susman Godfrey, $2.38 million

3. Sullivan & Cromwell, $2.33 million

4. Ropes & Gray, $2.33 million

5. Kirkland & Ellis, $2.29 million

The top firms for profits per equity partner are:

1. Kirkland & Ellis, $9.25 million

2. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, $9.03 million

3. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, $8.64 million

4. Davis Polk & Wardwell, $7.8 million

5. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, $7.66 million

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Ari Kaplan recently spoke with Edward Chick, the chief revenue officer at NopalCyber, a managed security services provider that offers outsourced cybersecurity support while seeking to democratize enterprise-level security for law firms and organizations in other sectors.

They discussed best practices to help law firm leaders identify cyber threats, mistakes that they are making with their cybersecurity protocols, how often they should test and update their cybersecurity procedures, and where to leverage artificial intelligence and machine learning to enhance cybersecurity.

Ari Kaplan: Tell us about your background and your role at NopalCyber.

Edward Chick: I have been in high-tech software and services for decades. I’ve worked with SAP, IBM and Oracle. Additionally, I have experience with smaller companies, including startups, and I have successfully helped them establish a stronger presence in the marketplace. I’m passionate about assisting customers in leveraging technology and services to enhance their operations.

Ari Kaplan: What makes NopalCyber’s method of identifying and prioritizing internal and external threats unique?

Edward Chick: Cybersecurity is sometimes not seen as important as it truly is because it operates behind the scenes. Many individuals using technology or engaged in business assume that others are managing these aspects. At NopalCyber, we have observed that a lot of complexity leads organizations and business executives to categorize it as an IT issue. Therefore, our business goal is to democratize cybersecurity, making it more accessible and bringing it to the forefront of business leaders’ awareness. We aim to collaborate with IT professionals to provide them with the support and resources necessary to achieve greater success. We serve multiple industries and possess decades of experience in the legal sector and many others. What we’ve observed is that the battle continues and is becoming more severe. The value we provide is our tech stack neutrality; we work with technologies that organizations have already invested in, often heavily. Many of these technology platforms come with built-in tools, like those from Microsoft or AWS. On average, organizations use about 30 different cybersecurity-related protection tools. These organizations may encounter thousands of alerts and alarms daily, facing a ‘needle-in-a-haystack’ challenge to identify the most critical issues. They must find ways to resolve these problems and take proactive measures to prevent them from occurring. There is enormous pressure on IT, especially in the United States. At NopalCyber, we bring both expertise in the particular industries these companies operate in, such as legal, and the resources to work with all the various technologies they are employing, thereby supplementing and strengthening their security posture.

Ari Kaplan: Which assets are most critical for law firms to protect?

Edward Chick: Absolutely everything. We begin by helping individuals become more savvy in protecting their interactions with technology, such as passwords. However, many bad actors are also targeting website applications or platforms or underlying data to gain access to something valuable. In business, there are two key areas of truth: the accounting systems and the contracts they manage. These represent formal areas of substance, with legal practitioners overseeing one-half of that. The bad actors are aware of this and see legal activities as potential targets. We’ve noticed that midsize law firms often lack sufficient protections. Insurers recognize this and the cost of cyber insurance, especially in the legal field, is quite high while coverage is actually declining, meaning you pay more for less. One of NopalCyber’s added values is our ability to strengthen these companies’ postures, which can help reduce cyber insurance costs and provide better protections from insurers. Another critical factor involves regulators. Even if a specific company is not heavily regulated by, for example, the SEC, the customers they work with may be subject to regulations. Over the past six months, we’ve seen an increasing requirement from the SEC for companies to enhance their compliance. They now have a duty to report any concerns. In the legal field, because lawyers collaborate with other firms, they engage in a community of activity related to specific matters or contracts, potentially involving participants who are heavily regulated. Naturally, insurance companies are aware of this and heighten exposure due to the regulators mandating protections that the insurance companies are then expected to cover. This creates a network of interlocking dependencies, and at NopalCyber, we can significantly assist in strengthening the postures of these companies, allowing them to achieve a more favorable cost structure from their insurers and, of course, adhere better to the regulators’ requirements.

Ari Kaplan: What mistakes are law firm leaders making with their cybersecurity protocols?

Edward Chick: They’re often taking it for granted. These are competent professionals with expertise in their field, and they reasonably assume that IT has this under control. However, the fact is that IT is under tremendous pressure; the bad guys are constantly changing their strategies and tactics. We also often notice that general counsel and legal practitioners don’t offer their assistance frequently enough. They could take a leadership position by regularly reaching out to IT and asking, “How can we help? How can I prioritize the risks associated with the particular tools I’m using? How can I provide you with more information about my business activities to give IT and your chief security officers better visibility into what’s important for the business?” We’ve seen that this leadership fosters prioritization regarding budgets, costs and awareness of regulatory exposures.

Ari Kaplan: How often should law firms test and update their cybersecurity procedures?

Edward Chick: Definitely not once a year. Companies conduct annual penetration tests on their platforms or specific applications, for example, but that’s not really good enough. We’ve seen organizations increase the frequency to quarterly or even monthly. Our position is that all these aspects should be inspected 24/7. The bad guys aren’t waiting for an annual opportunity to act. Consequently, the exposures are permanent and require full-time attention. Legal professionals can play a very helpful role in drawing attention to this issue and ensuring that they stay up to date. They are trained to follow protocols for even simple tasks, like changing passwords. It is extraordinary how people take these matters for granted, and everyone assumes that someone else will be impacted, which is simply not the reality. It’s similar to any good business practice. The teams are in alliance with the rest of the organization they support; if leadership recognizes this and provides support to the individual security teams, then everyone benefits. At NopalCyber, we offer complementary services to organizations. We can manage the entire security environment for an organization or complement and support the various teams they may have in place. We view this as a proactive security posture, enabling us to identify issues before they arise because we can see much more than an individual firm might perceive. We play a critical role in providing early warnings about things they might not be aware of from an offensive security perspective, and we can provide the necessary assistance for defense. Some organizations are uncertain about their security standing, and we help them gain clarity on their position. We conduct something called “attack surface discovery,” which produces an analysis from an outside-in perspective without any privileged access to show what an organization looks like from a potential hacker’s viewpoint. We can share those results, and when we do engage, we leverage the tools they already have while streamlining all the alerts into a single ‘pane of glass.’ With our reporting tool, Nopal360, we make this accessible on desktops and mobile devices 24/7. The best practice is to always have these protections in place, maintain awareness of potential attack sources, and act quickly and effectively. Legal professionals who understand their own personal liability as lawyers, as well as the company’s exposure from a risk management standpoint, can be immensely helpful allies in this overall strengthening of security posture.

Ari Kaplan: How can legal organizations utilize artificial intelligence and machine learning to strengthen their cybersecurity?

Edward Chick: Virtually every law firm and legal practitioner worldwide is now aware of the benefits of various AI tools. I entered this space relatively early at IBM, engaging with legal applications using Watson over a decade ago, and I have seen remarkable results. Major benefits arise from leveraging AI, and the pace of advancement is accelerating; however, it also introduces certain risks. Malicious actors are using AI for hacking and exposing various cyber vulnerabilities. Moreover, employing AI often involves integrating data from large language models or utilizing third-party tools, which may require inputting sensitive information into these external systems that may not be entirely secure. Since lawyers and legal practitioners play an incredibly important role within an organization, they inadvertently raise risks associated with the use of AI, as these systems are often federated and rely on tools and data sources from outside to achieve business results, potentially exposing them to further risks. A key part of our mission at NopalCyber is to strengthen this posture and instill confidence in legal practitioners, so they can reap the benefits of these new tools while ensuring they do not create additional vulnerabilities. Our stance is to engage with these new innovations enthusiastically, embrace the benefits they offer—but with a vigilant awareness of cybersecurity realities.

Ari Kaplan: How does focusing on cybersecurity enable law firms to foster innovation?

Edward Chick: This will enable them to be more experimental and try various approaches. They should view cybersecurity exposure as a crucial aspect of engaging in innovation. Cybersecurity is essential to ensure that you’re prepared to embrace new innovations.

Ari Kaplan: How do you see cybersecurity evolving?

Edward Chick: It’s constantly changing every day, every hour, and trying to handle all this by yourself is truly challenging. The bad actors recognize that midsize firms don’t have the resources to manage this effectively. Our business value proposition is to assist those organizations in achieving a stronger security posture in a cost-effective manner that they would typically be unlikely to accomplish on their own, allowing them to focus on their core business. They should concentrate on what they excel at. Another critical aspect is engaging with their clients. It’s a good practice to initiate discussions with clients by stating that everything they’re going to do for that client incorporates cybersecurity awareness. Legal practitioners often lack knowledge about cybersecurity and don’t address it. However, if they become more informed and bring it up during their client interactions, we’ve seen that it significantly enhances engagement. It fosters trust, which is essential in the legal community. We see our role as helping organizations strengthen their relationships with customers, especially when acquiring new clients, as well as enhancing the existing portfolio of customers, some of whom they’ve served for decades. We’ve observed an engagement model where they reconnect with their clients and present the realities of cybersecurity in a way that they haven’t done before it resonates very well. This is part of a broader customer care journey and is quite powerful.

---

Listen to the complete interview at Reinventing Professionals.

Ari Kaplan regularly interviews leaders in the legal industry and in the broader professional services community to share perspective, highlight transformative change and introduce new technology at his blog and on iTunes.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law prof who used F-word while criticizing…

Law Professors

Law prof who used F-word while criticizing political leaders can’t be reinstated immediately, appeals court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 4, 2025, 9:14 am CST

Updated: A state appeals court stepped in after a judge in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, issued a temporary restraining order that required Louisiana State University to reinstate a law professor to teaching following his suspension for “inappropriate statements” in the classroom.

Judge Donald R. Johnson of the 19th Judicial District Court in Louisiana ordered professor Ken M. Levy’s temporary reinstatement Jan. 30 and set a Feb. 10 hearing to consider the professor’s request for an injunction. The TRO said the university can’t take action against Levy, for now, on account of free speech and due process protections under the state and federal constitutions.

Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeal vacated part of the TRO in a Feb. 4 order, report the Advocate and WAFB via Above the Law. The appeals court said Johnson should not have ordered Levy back into the classroom without a full evidentiary hearing. Still intact is another part of the TRO barring Louisiana State University from interfering with Levy’s employment based on expression that is constitutionally protected.

The Louisiana Luminator, NOLA.com and WAFB (here and here) had coverage of the TRO noted by Above the Law and the Volokh Conspiracy. Law.com has a report on the resignation of Louisiana State University general counsel Winston DeCuir Jr., who was the first Black lawyer to serve in that role for Louisiana State University. DeCuir resigned days after Levy’s suspension.

Levy had used the F-word while criticizing President Donald Trump and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry. The university told Levy that he was suspended “pending an investigation into student complaints of inappropriate statements made in your class,” according to a Jan. 17 letter cited by NOLA.com.

In a court filing, the university said it was investigating “inappropriate, vulgar and potentially harassing conduct in the classroom,” WAFB reported. The university said it removed Levy after hearing a recording of a classroom lecture.

WAFB obtained a tape of Levy’s statements, made during an introductory lecture to his criminal law class. He spoke after asking students not to record his lectures because he didn’t want to get in trouble with the governor as another law professor did for classroom comments. Here are some of his comments:

  • “I frankly, like, forward my s- – – to the governor, like I generally don’t have a problem; I would love to become a national celebrity based on what I said in this class, like f- – – the governor.” Levy said. “But taken out of context, I might seem like a bit of an a- -hole.”

  • “You probably heard I’m a big lefty; OK, I’m a big Democrat, um, I’ve been devastated by, I couldn’t believe that f- – -er won. Um, and those of you who like him, I don’t give a s- – -, you can have, you’re already getting ready to say your evaluations. I don’t need his political commentary; no, you need my political commentary, you above all others need my political commentary.”

A court filing said Levy’s comments about Landry were made in a joking manner, and his comments about Trump were his “rather colorful opinion,” NOLA.com reported.

Johnson denied motions by Louisiana State University for a stay or dissolution of the temporary restraining order, according to WAFB.

The university said in a statement cited by NOLA.com it was committed “to upholding academic freedom while maintaining a respectful and professional learning environment.”

Faculty members should respect the views of others, the statement said. And academic freedom doesn’t give professors the freedom to use the classroom “as a platform for personal grievances,” the university said.

Updated Feb. 5 at 8:40 a.m. to report on the Louisiana appeals court’s decision.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

The mother of the Proud Boys leader who helped orchestrate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol went on television to ask President-elect Donald Trump to pardon her son from his 22-year sentence.

Enrique Tarrio was not in Washington D.C. that day but prosecutors argued he was one of the chief architects of the riot as he was the head of the Proud Boys who led the assault on the Capitol. A jury agreed, convicting him of seditious conspiracy, and a judge handed out the longest sentence of any of the Jan. 6 defendants. Now with Trump set to take office next year, many of the imprisoned rioters are hoping he issues them pardons as he said he would while on the campaign trail.

More from Law&Crime: ‘These assertions defy credulity’: Capitol Police officers using KKK Act to sue Trump over Jan. 6 push to unseal Jack Smith grand jury materials

In an interview with South Florida NBC affiliate WTVJ, Tarrio’s mother Zuny Tarrio spoke directly to Trump.

“President Trump, I think my son and most of those J6, if not all, deserve to be home with their families,” she said. “We’ve suffered long enough.”

She said while the riot was unfortunate, the “government” should have prevented it before it happened.

“I don’t think anyone honestly likes what happened January 6th,” Zuny Tarrio said. “I think the way that it happened, shouldn’t have happened. I think the government could have stopped that in a lot of ways.”

At least five police officers who engaged with the violent mob died after Jan. 6. Dozens more were injured. Zuny Tarrio said when officers took an oath “there’s no guarantees of what happens when you do a job like that.” She also said the idea that her son was a leader of the riot is “far-fetched” because people who weren’t Proud Boys also committed violence.

“Enrique Tarrio wasn’t even there that day. He was not on the [Capitol] grounds,” she said. “He was not in Washington D.C. that day.”

She described the last few years with her son in prison as “horrific.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Courtroom ‘is not a theater’ for unsubstantiated…

Rule of Law

Courtroom ‘is not a theater’ for unsubstantiated election claims, says letter signed by 125 bar leaders

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 5, 2024, 12:42 pm CST

All lawsuits—including election-related actions—must be “grounded in fact, supported by law and free from improper motives,” according to an open letter signed by 125 past and current bar leaders when it was published Monday evening.

“The courtroom is not a theater for unsubstantiated claims,” according to the letter.

Among the bar leaders who signed the letter are four people who identify themselves as former ABA presidents: R. William “Bill” Ide (1994-95), Dennis W. Archer (2003-2004), Laurel G. Bellows (2012-2013) and James R. Silkenat (2013-2014).

Mary Smith, who is the immediate past president of the ABA, also signed the letter but identified herself as a past president of the National Native American Bar Association.

Another former ABA president, Linda Klein, (2016-2017) also signed the letter but identified herself as a past president of the State Bar of Georgia.

Some members of the ABA Task Force for American Democracy organized the letter in their personal capacity.

U.S. News & World Report spoke with Monte E. Frank, a member of the ABA Task Force for American Democracy’s advisory commission. He said the letter is intended to remind lawyers that they are “oath-bound protectors of the Constitution and rule of law.”

“By having state bar and local bar and national bar leaders stand up and lead on this sends a very powerful message to those who are seeking to undermine the integrity of our elections,” said Frank, who signed the letter as a past president of the Connecticut Bar Association and the New England Bar Association.

After the 2020 presidential election, “some 628 legal cases were filed alleging fraud or impropriety, and they were overwhelmingly unsuccessful,” the letter said. Five lawyers connected to the cases were disbarred or suspended from law practice.

The baseless cases stirred confusion and anger, leading to threats against election workers, judges and others and likely contributing to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the letter said.

“Filing election-related lawsuits without a solid factual and legal foundation endangers the very institutions lawyers are oath-bound to defend,” the letter said. “In a functioning democracy, lawsuits are not weapons to spread distrust—they are tools for justice.”

It is the final question I pose, when interviewing lawyers to write their bios, as a small part of my legal marketing, PR and communications practice. I will already have digested their standard fare: what they do, what they want to do more of, why what they do really matters and to whom.

But then I ask for dessert, a detail typically not on the regular menu: “Are there any interesting hobbies, collections or life experiences you can share? A favorite book, movie or trip? Are you training for anything—perhaps a 5K or half-marathon? Taking a class?”

“You’re crazy about karaoke!” I will sometimes jokingly accuse. Responses generally fall into one of three categories.

A small percentage are annoyed by this line of questioning, considering it undignified or irrelevant. Although I cannot recall asking him this, one lawyer informs me that his clients, “don’t give a whit whether he likes long walks on the beach,” only that he gets their deals done and their cases won. Another is reluctant to reveal his lifelong love of the Yankees, lest he alienate clients who misguidedly root for the Red Sox. Both points duly noted.

But while some situations may indeed call for greater formality and/or neutrality, there is a method to this marketing madness. Many clients want a lawyer they can feel comfortable with and talk to. A bio that provides a small preview of personality and “voice” can help to ensure a good match. For this reason—and, of course, within reason—many law firms are now choosing to adopt a more conversational, user-friendly tone in their website and other content.

The majority of interview subjects inform me that there is nothing interesting or unique about them. “I’m boring!” they insist. “When I’m not working, I’m spending time with my family or chasing after my kids. That’s it.”

While I find “not a whit” boring about that, when I press this group gently about what their family likes to do together, I am often rewarded with such gems as, “My husband and I have passed our love of horror movies down to our finally age-appropriate teenagers, and we take turns picking what to watch during our weekly ‘Family Fright Night.’” Bingo.

The final bunch are fully on board from the jump, enthusiastically sharing far more fun facts than I can possibly fit into a paragraph (the most space this content will ever be allotted). These are my people, kindred, and I want to hire every single one of them, despite having no present need for CFIUS, antitrust or criminal defense counsel.

In addition to all being consummate professionals, one is a highly feted opera singer, an alto, on the side. Another is a member of a Mardi Gras parade “krewe” that adorns human shoes gorgeously with glitter to hand out to spectators as swag. This is someone I want to ride with. Then there’s the guy who unexpectedly had to deliver one of his children himself. If that doesn’t instill confidence in your litigator, demonstrating admirable poise under pressure, please tell me what it is you require.

Of course, not all the answers are lighthearted. Sometimes “my” lawyers (as I protectively come to think of them) will share something serious, about significant obstacles and hardships that they have overcome to get to where they are now. I am honored to help them do so.

In a recent presidential debate, perhaps the political candidates should also have been asked this question.

Former President Donald Trump, in responding, might have recalled his short stint as a film critic, discussing Citizen Kane, a 1941 classic film, observing that “maybe wealth isn’t everything” (because money didn’t buy Kane happiness) and suggesting that what Kane really needed was a different woman. Or he could have reminded the co-moderator, David Muir of ABC News, that he wrestled then-WWE CEO Vince McMahon in the 2007 “Battle of the Billionaires” at WrestleMania 23 and won—hugely.

Vice President Kamala Harris might have shared with co-moderator Linsey Davis that her name means “lotus flower” in Sanskrit, that she worked at McDonald’s during a summer while in college, and that she once cooked South Indian masala dosas in actress Mindy Kaling’s kitchen, quite possibly while sporting Chuck Taylor shoes.

While, of course, these facts are nowhere near as important as the major issues currently on the minds of clients and country, I maintain that the trivia isn’t trivial. Just as the political is personal, so is the professional. Whether as client or constituent, catching a glimpse of the person behind the practice makes me more hopeful that—as they go about their business, and mine—they might also be more likely to keep my humanity in mind.

Even if a firm doesn’t end up ultimately using this information on their website, compiling it can still be a valuable exercise. Sharing it internally—either on the firm’s intranet or via other internal communication—is a creative way to build community (especially for new associates, but I would suggest including support staff, as well).

And in case my clients are curious, while perhaps also misguidedly, I root for the Mets. I like long walks on the beach just fine, but I prefer long drives along coasts. I took one just the other day, on Long Island’s South Shore—windows open, salt air whipping hair, a large Dunkin’ coffee (cream, no sugar) in the console cup holder, and Post Malone’s surprisingly catchy new country album blasting while I sang loudly and off-key.

I don’t normally listen to country music, but I am crazy about karaoke—in cars.

---

Tania Zamorsky is the founder of Zamo PR & Communications. She can be reached at [email protected].

---

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.