In a Wednesday letter, Kirkland & Ellis told the American Lawyer it will no longer submit revenue and profit figures for the Am Law 100 rankings, ending the firm's participation in the legal industry's most-watched financial league table.

According to the 2026 Am Law 100, the firm crossed $10 billion in revenue, becoming the first law firm worldwide to reach that mark.

Why is Kirkland walking away?

Kirkland's leadership told the American Lawyer it "concluded that public reporting of our revenue and profits does not provide meaningful value to our clients nor adequately reflect the caliber of our firm's legal services."

The American Lawyer's Am Law 100 ranks U.S. law firms each year on financial performance. The methodology depends on self-reported numbers from participating firms, with the publication declining to disclose exact figures for firms that decline to submit.

What does the firm say is wrong with the rankings?

In a second passage, Kirkland sharpened its critique. "Specifically, we believe the rankings could incentivize quantitative metrics over qualitative strengths while failing to capture the most important attributes of legal work—the quality of legal service and the outcomes achieved for clients," the firm wrote.

The argument echoes long-running debates inside law firms about whether revenue-driven rankings distort incentives. Critics contend the chase for top-10 status can push firms toward volume over judgment, high-margin practices over public interest work, and rate increases over client outcomes.

What happens to the 2027 rankings?

The departure of the revenue leader creates a measurement problem for next year's edition. Without Kirkland's submission, the Am Law 100 will need a methodology adjustment at the top of the list. The publication has not yet indicated whether it will estimate the firm's revenue, leave the position open, or simply rank the next-largest submitting firm.

A single firm's withdrawal does not collapse the rankings. But it does test the publication's leverage. The Am Law brand carries weight in lateral hiring, associate recruiting, and client pitches. Several top firms cite their Am Law position in marketing materials and on their websites.

How did the news break?

Bloomberg Law reviewed the letter and published the first report. The American Lawyer, the direct recipient, has not publicly responded. It remains unclear whether other firms have signaled parallel decisions to withhold their financial data.

The Am Law 100 has historically had near-universal participation among the largest U.S. firms. Refusal to submit has occurred before, though usually among firms outside the top tier that stood to gain little from disclosure.

What does this mean for practitioners?

For in-house counsel, lateral candidates, and legal recruiters, the practical effect is incremental rather than immediate. Kirkland's deal pipeline, client roster, and brand remain unchanged. The shift removes one data point from the public benchmark used to compare firms.

For the Am Law 100 itself, the publication faces a methodology question. How it handles the gap in next year's list will shape how the legal market reads the rankings going forward.

The episode also surfaces a question several elite firms have weighed privately. When the revenue leader argues the rankings distort legal practice, the league table's authority depends on continued buy-in from the firms it measures.