McDermott Will & Schulte LLP vs. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP vs. Baker McKenzie LLP
Category by category. Sources: Vault 2027, Am Law 200 FY2025, and reported Chambers records from the years shown.
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP
Est. 1934
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Est. 1868
- Baker McKenzie LLP
Est. 1949
Est. 1934
McDermott Will & Schulte LLP is a 1,000-plus-attorney firm, Am Law #16. Jurisdiction-specific Chambers rankings include Band 1 in Corporate/M&A & Private Equity, Corporate/M&A: Shareholder Activism, and Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation.
Est. 1868
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP is a mid-size firm of ~684 attorneys. Jurisdiction-specific Chambers rankings include Band 1 in Construction, Energy: Nuclear (Regulatory & Litigation), and Food & Beverages: Alcohol. Operates from 22 offices worldwide.
Est. 1949
Baker McKenzie LLP is a 2,000-plus-attorney global firm, Am Law #8. Jurisdiction-specific Chambers rankings include Band 1 in Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation, and Immigration.
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP#46
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP#60
- Baker McKenzie LLP#45
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP#16
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP#65
- Baker McKenzie LLP#8
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP23 records
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP7 records
- Baker McKenzie LLP8 records
- #46
- #16
- 23 records
- Vault rank
- #60
- Am Law rank
- #65
- Reported Chambers Band 1 records
- 7 records
- Vault rank
- #45
- Am Law rank
- #8
- Reported Chambers Band 1 records
- 8 records
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLPNot Reported
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP$225,000+
- Baker McKenzie LLP$225,000+
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP$5.17M
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP$2.89M
- Baker McKenzie LLP$2.44M
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP$2.99B
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP$939.12M
- Baker McKenzie LLP$3.64B
Revenue per lawyer
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP$1.79M
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP$1.37M
- Baker McKenzie LLP$818K
- Not Reported
- $5.17M
- $2.99B
- Revenue per lawyer
- $1.79M
- First-Year Comp
- $225,000+
- Profits Per Partner
- $2.89M
- Firm revenue
- $939.12M
- Revenue per lawyer
- $1.37M
- First-Year Comp
- $225,000+
- Profits Per Partner
- $2.44M
- Firm revenue
- $3.64B
- Revenue per lawyer
- $818K
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP2,000
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPNot Reported
- Baker McKenzie LLPNot Reported
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLPNot Reported
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPNot Reported
- Baker McKenzie LLPNot Reported
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLPNot Reported
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP0.6:1
- Baker McKenzie LLPNot Reported
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP~1,700
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP~700
- Baker McKenzie LLP~4,450
Offices
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP27
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP22
- Baker McKenzie LLP9
- 2,000
- Not Reported
- Not Reported
- ~1,700
- Offices
- 27
- Billable target
- Not Reported
- Partnership track
- Not Reported
- US associates per partner
- 0.6:1
- Firm size (rounded to 50)
- ~700
- Offices
- 22
- Billable target
- Not Reported
- Partnership track
- Not Reported
- US associates per partner
- Not Reported
- Firm size (rounded to 50)
- ~4,450
- Offices
- 9
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP99%
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP94.1%
- Baker McKenzie LLPNot Reported
Class size
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP75 (year not confirmed)
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP38 (year not confirmed)
- Baker McKenzie LLPNot Reported
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLPNot Reported
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPFree market
- Baker McKenzie LLPCentralized staffing
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLPYes
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPNo
- Baker McKenzie LLPNo
- 99%
- Class size
- 75 (year not confirmed)
- Not Reported
- Yes
- Offer rate
- 94.1%
- Class size
- 38 (year not confirmed)
- How associates get work
- Free market
- Specific practice area
- No
- Offer rate
- Not Reported
- Class size
- Not Reported
- How associates get work
- Centralized staffing
- Specific practice area
- No
Green marks the stronger for the same practice, market and year. Shared results are listed once. split some top tables.
Rank differences
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLPBand 1
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPBand 1
- Baker McKenzie LLPBand 2
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLPBand 1
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPBand 2
- Baker McKenzie LLPBand 1
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLPBand 4
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPBand 4
- Baker McKenzie LLPBand 1
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLPBand 1
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPBand 2
- Baker McKenzie LLPBand 2
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLPBand 3 · Elite
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPBand 3 · Highly Regarded
- Baker McKenzie LLPBand 3 · Elite
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLPBand 4
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPBand 6
- Baker McKenzie LLPBand 4
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLPBand 2 · Highly Regarded
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPBand 5 · Highly Regarded
- Baker McKenzie LLPBand 1 · Highly Regarded
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLPBand 1 · Highly Regarded
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPBand 2 · Highly Regarded
- Baker McKenzie LLPBand 2 · Highly Regarded
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLPBand 1 · Highly Regarded
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPBand 4 · Highly Regarded
- Baker McKenzie LLPBand 3 · Highly Regarded
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”.