Simpson Thacher stops reporting financials to Am Law, the third elite firm to go dark in five weeks

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett has told The American Lawyer it will stop supplying financial figures for the Am Law rankings. It is the third large firm to withdraw in about five weeks. The firm informed the publication on Tuesday, and told the Financial Times that it "will cease publicly reporting its financial results, effective immediately," arguing that financial metrics give only a limited view of a firm and do not fully reflect the value it provides to clients.

What the firm last reported

According to The American Lawyer, Simpson Thacher's 2025 revenue rose 22.5% to $3.55 billion, and average profits per equity partner rose 11.8% to $8.57 million. Lawyer headcount grew 18% to 1,761, and the equity partnership grew 12% to 229 partners. The firm ranked 10th in the 2026 Am Law rankings. Those figures appear to be the last the firm will provide.

A pattern since October

Kirkland & Ellis moved first. Above the Law reported that Kirkland went dark in early October after topping $10 billion in revenue, with Paul, Weiss telling The American Lawyer on Thursday, October 29 that it would follow. Kirkland told The American Lawyer that public reporting of its revenue and profits does not provide meaningful value to its clients, according to Above the Law. Simpson Thacher's rationale echoes Kirkland's. Paul, Weiss told the publication that its 2025 numbers, which showed $3.3 billion in revenue and $8.6 million in profits per equity partner, would be its last, Above the Law reported.

The practice is not new at the very top of the market. Slaughter and May, Freshfields and Wachtell are among the firms that do not supply financial data, leaving The American Lawyer to estimate their figures.

The American Lawyer's parent company has said it will keep publishing. Gina Passarella, its chief content officer, said "Clients and talent consistently tell us they want transparency and clarity," according to Above the Law. In practice that means estimates rather than firm-supplied numbers.

Why firms say they are doing it, and what others suggest

The firms' stated reasons are about client value. Commentators have offered other theories. Above the Law speculated that clients pushing back on rate hikes was the obvious one, and noted that Kirkland, Paul, Weiss and Simpson Thacher all reached deals with the Trump administration last year. It also reported that Congress is paying closer attention to those arrangements.

What this means for in-house counsel

Legal operations teams may want to rely more on their own matter data, such as realized rates, staffing ratios and budget variance, and less on published profit figures.

Consider asking for the information in the engagement process instead. Panel reviews and RFPs can request realized-rate history, leverage, and the share of work handled by associates versus partners on comparable matters. Firms that say financial metrics do not reflect their value should be able to describe what does, in terms you can measure against your own matters.

Finally, keep estimated figures in perspective. They come from a third party, not from the firm, and may be off. Treat them as one input, and do not cite them to outside counsel as fact in a fee negotiation.