A growing number of elite law firms are refusing to disclose financial performance data, raising serious questions about accountability across the Biglaw sector.
The trend has now claimed a third casualty among Am Law 100 firms, prompting observers to joke that the prestigious ranking is becoming little more than a collection of educated guesses.
The Am Law 100 has long served as the definitive measure of law firm financial health, but its credibility depends entirely on firms submitting accurate and complete revenue and profit figures.
When major practices opt out of that process, the rankings lose precision, and clients, lateral candidates, and partners assessing firm stability are left with incomplete pictures.
Critics have begun referring to the list as the “Am Law Estimates,” a pointed dig at the erosion of reliable data from some of the country’s highest-grossing legal practices.
Financial opacity at this level is not merely an industry curiosity; it affects how associates evaluate job offers, how clients benchmark outside counsel, and how lenders assess firm risk.
The blackout trend stands in contrast to moves elsewhere in Biglaw, where associate compensation remains a fiercely competitive and very public battleground.
Foley & Lardner is the latest firm to make a concrete commitment on pay, with associates set to receive salaries matching the Milbank scale starting in February.
The Milbank scale has become the de facto benchmark for top-market associate compensation, and firms that lag behind it risk losing talent to rivals who have already made the match.
For Foley & Lardner associates, the February timeline gives them clarity heading into the new year, even as uncertainty clouds the broader financial picture at firms choosing silence over disclosure.
The contrast is striking: some firms are loudly advertising their willingness to pay top dollar for associate talent while simultaneously pulling back the curtain on how much money they are actually generating.
Whether that pattern reflects strategic communications, genuine competitive sensitivity, or something more concerning remains an open question as the Am Law data collection season approaches.
What is clear is that the dual dynamic of conspicuous generosity on salaries and conspicuous silence on revenues is reshaping how the Biglaw market is understood from the outside.