A poster over at Greedy Texas got me thinking about what the best qualitative metric of a BigTex vs. a MidTex firm is. They posit that “no one gives a crap” about gross revenue, and that Profits Per Partner (PPP) and Revenue Per Lawyer (RPL) are all that really matter.

Having examined the gross revenues numbers previously lets compare the PPP and RPL of the firms that matter most to this discussion (i.e., the firms compared last time based on gross revenue alone, and a few others that are more than just single-city shops, or Texas outposts of national/regional firms)


I noted a few of these firms as tied when their PPP and RPL were inverted and similar. All in all, a fairly surprising ranking (i.e., Winstead being closer in PPP and RPL to Kelly Hart than to, say, Thompson Knight)

However, I still am of the mind that BigTex and MidTex are more accurately terms denoting scale, a measurement for which gross revenue would seem to be the most pertinent metric. So I’d still draw the BigTex/MidTex lines according to gross revenue, but look to the PPP and RPL metrics to determine how efficient a firm is, and how rewarded one might be for their toil.

So of the four BigTex firms confirmed by gross revenue (Akin Gump, Fulbright, V&E, and Baker Botts), it looks like all but Fulbright hold up their end of the bargain on PPP and RPL as well.

Thx to Greedy Texas and the Texas Lawyer