Related Posts
Anyone with insight on Tyson Mendes?
Additional Posts in Big Law
Kasowitz Benson - what is your opinion of them?
White collar folks - how busy are you guys now?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.





If you’re not making +/- $15k within the market biglaw pay scale ($205k first year base) it would be tough to convince me you’re biglaw.
Mentor
Roughly it is any firm that pays close to DPW salary and bonuses. Some AmLaw 200 firms (Irell, Choate) are biglaw and some AmLaw 100 (Littler, Lewis Brisbois) are not.
If you’re talking about biglaw culture, the litigation boutiques also fall under the definition.
It has very little to do with size or gross revenue.
Isn't Irell essentially a patent boutique now, or at least on its way there? Not that your point isn't valid--I agree with your general idea.
According to ATL, it’s any law firm with more than one office
Mentor
Personally, I’ve always thought of “big law” as firms with over $1 billion in annual revenue. Granted that would exclude a lot of amlaw 100 firms.
Subject Expert
The most recent data I could find was for 2019. Not surprising it’s grown. But my point still stands. Revenue doesn’t equate to quality.
Paying the prevailing market (cravath/DPW) scale.
Mentor
Don’t call it the Cravath scale anymore lol
Everyone has their own definition. Those who believe big law is based on salary have the definition so they can show others that they don’t make as much, even if the firm is “big.” Depends on if you equate “big” to $ or size. Really has just become an elitist term that non-lawyers would want to barf from.
Mentor
There’s a difference between biglaw and a “large law firm.” There are many large law firms in the US, but biglaw is a term used to capture the firms working on the biggest deals and most sophisticated cases. A proxy for that is associate pay since those firms can generally charge significantly more for their services.
Mentor
Roughly DPW scale, with some minor leeway on the lower bound depending on the firm’s overall reputation
Subject Expert
Paying the prevailing market scale in the market the firm is in.
I’m not going to say DPW/Cravath because then tons of firms I think most would say are “biglaw” wouldn’t qualify because they’re in Atlanta, Miami, Philly, etc. E.g., if the market rate in Philly is $180k, I’d say you are biglaw if you pay that.
Mentor
A5, that was the case before, but a lot of firms moved to national scales earlier this year (Alston & Bird, Reed Smith, Holland & Knight, etc.) which kind of eliminates the regional scale notion.
Subject Expert
Prevailing market scale, multiple offices, 2000+ hours expectations, more than 300+ attorneys, on the AmLaw 100, and mostly works on highly sophisticated matters. They’re the firms always showing up in legal news.
There are definitely big law shops that require fewer than 2000 hours. OMM for one (1950 stated goal, and unofficially 1900 is OK).
This platform is dominated by US associates that tend to exclude all firms other than the top US firms from the definition of BigLaw.
I agree with A6 above - your definition of BigLaw will probably change depending on your market.
I’m an Australian lawyer and we would refer to the “big 6” Australian law firms as “biglaw” in our market, though most US associates would toss their noses up at this notion because we aren’t even close to the US pay scale.
The reality is that we work the same hours, in the same environments, on the same types of work, with the same expectations, just for much, much less pay (hence why most of our associates go to UK/US to do the same job for x 3 the money - and yes, UK/US “real” BigLaw firms regularly hire AU associates).