Cooley LLP vs. Latham & Watkins LLP vs. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Category by category. Sources: Vault 2027, Am Law 200 FY2025, and reported Chambers records from the years shown.
- Cooley LLP
Est. 1920
- Latham & Watkins LLP
Est. 1934 · Los Angeles
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Est. 1927
Est. 1920
Cooley LLP is a 1,000-plus-attorney firm, Vault #22 / Am Law #24. Jurisdiction-specific Chambers rankings include Band 1 in Artificial Intelligence, Capital Markets, and Capital Markets: Debt & Equity. Operates from 19 offices worldwide.
Est. 1934 · Los Angeles
Latham & Watkins LLP is a 2,000-plus-attorney global firm, Vault #4 / Am Law #2, founded in Los Angeles, CA. Jurisdiction-specific Chambers rankings include Band 1 in Antitrust, Antitrust: Cartel, and Appellate Law. Operates from 34 offices worldwide.
Est. 1927
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP is a 1,000-plus-attorney firm, Am Law #47. Jurisdiction-specific Chambers rankings include Band 1 in Energy: State Regulatory & Litigation and Native American Law: Finance; Band 2 in Government Contracts. Operates from 11 offices worldwide.
- Cooley LLP#22
- Latham & Watkins LLP#4
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP#66
- Cooley LLP#24
- Latham & Watkins LLP#2
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP#47
- Cooley LLP24 records
- Latham & Watkins LLP96 records
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP2 records
- #22
- #24
- 24 records
- Vault rank
- #4
- Am Law rank
- #2
- Reported Chambers Band 1 records
- 96 records
- Vault rank
- #66
- Am Law rank
- #47
- Reported Chambers Band 1 records
- 2 records
- Cooley LLP$255,000+
- Latham & Watkins LLP$225,000
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP$225,000
- Cooley LLP$4.58M
- Latham & Watkins LLP$8.65M
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP$3.04M
- Cooley LLP$2.37B
- Latham & Watkins LLP$8.30B
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP$1.38B
Revenue per lawyer
- Cooley LLP$1.82M
- Latham & Watkins LLP$2.23M
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP$1.34M
- $255,000+
- $4.58M
- $2.37B
- Revenue per lawyer
- $1.82M
- First-Year Comp
- $225,000
- Profits Per Partner
- $8.65M
- Firm revenue
- $8.30B
- Revenue per lawyer
- $2.23M
- First-Year Comp
- $225,000
- Profits Per Partner
- $3.04M
- Firm revenue
- $1.38B
- Revenue per lawyer
- $1.34M
- Cooley LLP1,950
- Latham & Watkins LLP1,900
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPNot Reported
- Cooley LLPNot Reported
- Latham & Watkins LLPNot Reported
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPNot Reported
- Cooley LLPNot Reported
- Latham & Watkins LLP2.7:1
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPNot Reported
- Cooley LLP~1,300
- Latham & Watkins LLP~3,700
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP~1,050
Offices
- Cooley LLP19
- Latham & Watkins LLP34
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP11
- 1,950
- Not Reported
- Not Reported
- ~1,300
- Offices
- 19
- Billable target
- 1,900
- Partnership track
- Not Reported
- US associates per partner
- 2.7:1
- Firm size (rounded to 50)
- ~3,700
- Offices
- 34
- Billable target
- Not Reported
- Partnership track
- Not Reported
- US associates per partner
- Not Reported
- Firm size (rounded to 50)
- ~1,050
- Offices
- 11
- Cooley LLP98%
- Latham & Watkins LLP100%
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP100%
Class size
- Cooley LLP100 (year not confirmed)
- Latham & Watkins LLP398 (year not confirmed)
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP65 (2026)
- Cooley LLPNot Reported
- Latham & Watkins LLPNot Reported
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPNot Reported
- Cooley LLPCase by Case
- Latham & Watkins LLPNo
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPCase by Case
- 98%
- Class size
- 100 (year not confirmed)
- Not Reported
- Case by Case
- Offer rate
- 100%
- Class size
- 398 (year not confirmed)
- How associates get work
- Not Reported
- Specific practice area
- No
- Offer rate
- 100%
- Class size
- 65 (2026)
- How associates get work
- Not Reported
- Specific practice area
- Case by Case
Green marks the stronger for the same practice, market and year. Shared results are listed once. split some top tables.
Shared rankings
Rank differences
- Cooley LLPBand 4
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPBand 4
- Cooley LLPBand 3 · Elite
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1 · Elite
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPBand 1 · Highly Regarded
- Cooley LLPBand 2
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPBand 3
- Cooley LLPBand 1 · Elite
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 2 · Elite
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPBand 1 · Highly Regarded
- Cooley LLPBand 1
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 2
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPBand 2
- Cooley LLPBand 2 · Elite
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1 · Elite
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPBand 3 · Highly Regarded
- Cooley LLPBand 5
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPBand 5
- Cooley LLPBand 1 · Elite
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 2 · Elite
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPBand 3 · Highly Regarded
- Cooley LLPBand 2
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPBand 4
Firm-only and additional rankings remain available on each firm profile so missing coverage is not mistaken for a head-to-head loss.
See which of these firms are open on the Job Board
Data sources: Vault 2027, Am Law 200 FY2025, and reported Chambers records from the years shown. Chambers record counts can span years and reporting coverage varies; missing years or markets are not compared. Current Chambers bands were checked against each firm’s Chambers profile on Sep 26, 2026; where Chambers splits a table, every Elite firm ranks above every Highly Regarded firm. Missing values read “Not Reported”.