Latham & Watkins LLP vs. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP vs. Cooley LLP
Category by category. Sources: Vault 2027, Am Law 200 FY2025, and reported Chambers records from the years shown.
- Latham & Watkins LLP
Est. 1934 · Los Angeles
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Est. 1890
- Cooley LLP
Est. 1920
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. 1890
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is a 2,000-plus-attorney global firm, Vault #8 / Am Law #4. Jurisdiction-specific Chambers rankings include Band 1 in Accountant and Auditor Liability, Antitrust, and Antitrust: Cartel. Operates from 22 offices worldwide.
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.
- Latham & Watkins LLP#4
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP#8
- Cooley LLP#22
- Latham & Watkins LLP#2
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP#4
- Cooley LLP#24
- Latham & Watkins LLP96 records
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP48 records
- Cooley LLP24 records
- #4
- #2
- 96 records
- Vault rank
- #8
- Am Law rank
- #4
- Reported Chambers Band 1 records
- 48 records
- Vault rank
- #22
- Am Law rank
- #24
- Reported Chambers Band 1 records
- 24 records
- Latham & Watkins LLP$225,000
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP$225,000
- Cooley LLP$255,000+
- Latham & Watkins LLP$8.65M
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP$8.89M
- Cooley LLP$4.58M
- Latham & Watkins LLP$8.30B
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP$4.21B
- Cooley LLP$2.37B
Revenue per lawyer
- Latham & Watkins LLP$2.23M
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP$2.04M
- Cooley LLP$1.82M
- $225,000
- $8.65M
- $8.30B
- Revenue per lawyer
- $2.23M
- First-Year Comp
- $225,000
- Profits Per Partner
- $8.89M
- Firm revenue
- $4.21B
- Revenue per lawyer
- $2.04M
- First-Year Comp
- $255,000+
- Profits Per Partner
- $4.58M
- Firm revenue
- $2.37B
- Revenue per lawyer
- $1.82M
- Latham & Watkins LLP1,900
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPNot Reported
- Cooley LLP1,950
- Latham & Watkins LLPNot Reported
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPNot Reported
- Cooley LLPNot Reported
- Latham & Watkins LLP2.7:1
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP1.6:1
- Cooley LLPNot Reported
- Latham & Watkins LLP~3,700
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP~2,200
- Cooley LLP~1,300
Offices
- Latham & Watkins LLP34
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP22
- Cooley LLP19
- 1,900
- Not Reported
- 2.7:1
- ~3,700
- Offices
- 34
- Billable target
- Not Reported
- Partnership track
- Not Reported
- US associates per partner
- 1.6:1
- Firm size (rounded to 50)
- ~2,200
- Offices
- 22
- Billable target
- 1,950
- Partnership track
- Not Reported
- US associates per partner
- Not Reported
- Firm size (rounded to 50)
- ~1,300
- Offices
- 19
- Latham & Watkins LLP100%
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP97%
- Cooley LLP98%
Class size
- Latham & Watkins LLP398 (year not confirmed)
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP156 (year not confirmed)
- Cooley LLP100 (year not confirmed)
- Latham & Watkins LLPNot Reported
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPFree market
- Cooley LLPNot Reported
- Latham & Watkins LLPNo
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPNo
- Cooley LLPCase by Case
- 100%
- Class size
- 398 (year not confirmed)
- Not Reported
- No
- Offer rate
- 97%
- Class size
- 156 (year not confirmed)
- How associates get work
- Free market
- Specific practice area
- No
- Offer rate
- 98%
- Class size
- 100 (year not confirmed)
- 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
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPBand 1
- Cooley LLPBand 4
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPBand 3
- Cooley LLPBand 1
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPBand 1
- Cooley LLPBand 4
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPBand 3
- Cooley LLPBand 1
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPBand 2
- Cooley LLPBand 1
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 2 · Elite
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPBand 1 · Elite
- Cooley LLPBand 1 · Elite
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1 · Elite
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPBand 1 · Elite
- Cooley LLPBand 1 · Highly Regarded
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1 · Elite
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPBand 1 · Elite
- Cooley LLPBand 2 · Elite
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1 · Elite
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPBand 1 · Elite
- Cooley LLPBand 2 · Highly Regarded
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPBand 1
- Cooley LLPBand 5
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1 · Elite
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPBand 1 · Elite
- Cooley LLPBand 4 · Elite
- Latham & Watkins LLPBand 1
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPBand 1
- Cooley LLPBand 2
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”.